US President Barack Obama’s decision to arm the Syrian rebels in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) has come in for mixed reactions from international media. Given the US’s dismal record in fighting proxy wars and Obama’s vacillating stance thus far, the outcome is anybody’s guess, it says.
The New York Times has mixed feelings about the US’s decision to arm Syrian rebels as part of Obama’s strategy to combat Isil. Says its editorial, “President Obama’s new strategy for routing Isil rests substantially and precariously on having rebels in Syria fight Isil, even as they battle the forces of the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. The plan is full of hope and fraught with obstacles.”
And, says the editorial, there are bigger questions. “The main target of the United States right now is Isil, but for the mainstream rebel groups, getting rid of [Al] Assad is the main goal. How do you reconcile those competing goals? How do you avoid a flare-up of anti-American sentiment? The [Al] Assad government and its allies Russia and Iran have condemned Obama’s plans, but how will they react when the military campaign begins? And how can weapons shipped to rebel fighters be kept out of the hands of Isil?”
America’s success at training security forces in other countries, it reflects, has been mixed at best. “Unless the Obama administration can do better with the Syrian rebels, there is no chance the fight against Isil can be successful,” it concludes.
The Economist, meanwhile, wonders why Obama is reluctant to call it war when, clearly, it looks a lot like war. “Barack Obama does not call it a war and Congress has not passed a war powers resolution,” says its editorial. “Yet America is poised to begin officially arming and training rebels fighting against Isil in Syria, where the CIA has offered some covert assistance for some time. Chuck Hagel, the defence secretary, said that American support, which will cost $500 million, will consist of training for fighters conducted in Saudi Arabia, plus the provision of small arms, vehicles and communications technology. It will be several months before they are deemed ready for battle.
“If this goes well then more sophisticated weapons will be handed over. This approach has already been tested in the covert arming of rebels, some of whom have been loaned powerful weapons on the condition that they video their use, allowing American agents to verify that they have indeed been used for the purposes for which they were intended.”
The Clarion Ledger in its editorial seeks the answer to the question of why America’s Congress is wary of giving Obama full coverage for pursuing his Isil strategy. “No one wants to be on the record, before an election, on a vote that could quickly boomerang (think errant bombs and dead schoolchildren). Congressional leaders of both parties may be putting off a vote until later because they know they can’t win it.
“If Congress wants to limit Obama’s powers to act — or even go on record opposed to this war — the time is now, not later, says the editorial.
The Metro West Daily News hopes there will be other debates that examine more thoroughly America’s role in the Middle East. Its editorial says, “The US House of Representatives approved funding to train and equip Syrian rebels... but the vote was far from unanimous, and the debate illustrated emotions and concerns over escalating US involvement in Middle East factionalism that mirror those of the nation. This vote was on the relatively narrow issue of funding one band of Syrian rebels. We hope there will be other debates, and other votes, before the US wades into another Middle East quagmire.”
The Wall Street Journal castigates Obama’s vacillation in no uncertain terms. “In his handling of Isil, the president has been slow to act, slow to move, inconsistent in his statements, unpersuasive, uninspiring. No boots on the ground, maybe boots on the ground but not combat boots, only advisory boots.” Meanwhile, it says, time passes. “A month ago there was a chance to hit Isil hard when they were in the field and destroy not just their arms but their mystique. At this point we are enhancing it. It is the focus of all eyes, the subject of the American debate. Maybe all this is the president’s clever way of letting time pass, letting things play out, so that in a few months the public fever to do something — he always thinks the public has a fever — will be over. And he will then be able to do little, which perhaps is what he wants.”
