The siege of Kobani has become a microcosm of the choices facing the US, says the Wall Street Journal. “The politics of the battle for Kobani are complicated,” its editorial says. “Turkey doesn’t want to help Syrian Kurds who it says have supported their enemies in the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The Syrian Kurds have long been divided into factions. There is the matter of who has supported or opposed the [Bashar Al] Assad regime in Damascus.” Kobani, says the paper, likely will join most of Iraq’s Anbar province in falling to Daesh if the US doesn’t soon provide fighters on the ground with anti-tank weapons and the like. “That commitment will require the US to participate in some accommodations with the region’s near-term alliances. It isn’t easy. Someone should make that reality clear to people before they seek the US Presidency.”
The Times of India sees Kobani emerge as an important symbol of resistance against Daesh. “Although coalition air strikes have impeded [Daesh] fighters in Kobani, it’s the Kurdish militia that has been valiantly holding the jihadists back on the ground,” it says in its editorial. “That there are several women fighters and commanders among the Kurds makes the battle for Kobani even more significant. “If Kobani falls, there’s a good chance that [Daesh] may target Turkish territories next. It’s welcome that Ankara has now allowed Peshmerga fighters passage to Kobani. But it should do more and play an active role within the coalition of regional countries to degrade and destroy [Daesh].”
The New York Times views Kobani’s survival as beating the odds. “If Kobani survives, it will have defied the odds. This embattled city on Syria’s northern border with Turkey has been on the verge of falling for weeks in the face of a brutal siege by [Daesh] militants. But the Syrian Kurds who call Kobani home continue to fight hard. The town, once dismissed as inconsequential by American commanders, has become not only a focus of the American operation ... but also a test of the administration’s strategy.”
Meanwhile, the Washington Post points to an unlikely consensus emerging “across the ideological spectrum about the war against Daesh. Obama’s strategy to “degrade and eventually destroy” the terrorist entity is unworkable. It’s not just that, as some administration officials say, more time is needed to accomplish complex tasks such as training Iraqi and Syrian forces. It’s that the military means the president has authorised cannot accomplish his announced aims. “The limitations to the US effort, which were mostly imposed by Obama, are prompting blunt assessments from senior Pentagon officials. We need a credible, moderate Syrian force, but we have not been willing to commit what it takes to build that force,” it quotes one official.
The Sydney Morning Herald is cautious of Australia’s role in the fight against Daesh. “Given the slow formation of the new Iraqi government and the defeats of its army in the past six months, hopes are faint that Iraqi forces on the ground can repel [Daesh] quickly, if at all. Amid such doubts and impatience ... governments should pursue all options — including disruption of [Daesh] finances — before considering ground troops.”