images

After giving his speech to the nation last week President Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have been intensely trying to build an international and Arab coalition in destroying ISIS.

On Monday, the New York Times reported the Obama administration stated on Sunday that “several” Arab nations had offered to join in airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, but any sustained military campaign does not appear imminent, and is likely to require an even more significant commitment from other nations and fighting forces in the region.

The Times continued to report, in interviews and public statements, administration and military officials described a battle plan that would not accelerate in earnest until disparate groups of Iraqi forces, Kurds and Syrian rebels stepped up to provide the fighting forces on the ground. Equipping, training and coordinating that effort is a lengthy process, officials cautioned.

The president in his national address last week mentioned that this is more than just an American problem; this is a concern of the international community, but more importantly for our Arab allies as well.

The Council on Foreign Relations wrote, representatives of twenty countries gathered in Paris Monday to coordinate a global response to combat the militant group ISIS, which released a third video over the weekend showing the beheading of a British aid worker. French president François Hollande called for united international action to tackle the threat, while Iraqi president Fuad Masum urged world powers to take broader military action against ISIS. So far, about forty countries—including ten Arab states—have committed to a coalition to help fight the extremist Sunni insurgency in Iraq and Syria.

The question is which Arab countries have signed on to the coalition?  The administration has not released the names of the Arab countries who have committed to the coalition.  If countries have signed on what capabilities will they bring and will contribute combat forces to attacking ISIS forces in Syria?

The New York Times added in its reporting, The United Arab Emirates, which provided some air power in the 2011 attacks on Libya, seemed at the top of the list, with Qatar hosting an American military headquarters. American officials cautioned that all strikes would have to be approved by the newly assembled government in Iraq, as well as by American military planners. That could prove just one challenge to the offer by Arab nations to participate in airstrikes: While Iraq’s struggling military forces have experience operating with the United States, its Shiite-dominated government has never worked with the Sunni states of the Persian Gulf.

The problem the president is facing is that our allies in the region and in the international community just do not trust this president to follow through on his commitment to see this through to the end.

Geoff Dyer writing for the Financial Times comments, “The risk of ‘leading from behind’ is that it leaves the US dependent on the efforts of its partners. If they do not succeed, Mr Obama could find himself sucked into the ground war in Iraq he staked his presidency on ending.”

Even the Economist writes, “Mr Obama thus needs to show a commitment to sustained personal diplomacy that has so far been lacking in his presidency. He also needs to demonstrate the potency of American firepower—to give countries pause before turning their backs on him. But most of all, a president who wanted to focus on home needs the resolve to stay the course abroad.”

The president has outlined his strategy but there still is extensive challenges and vague unclear objectives Obama has not full articulated yet.

The real underlying concern here is; how committed is the president to his strategy?