We live in the age of consent; you can't just drop some bombs on a country because you suspect terrorists on their soil. Worse, you can't even attack a country without permission of the Security Council and you need a very strong case that it's just self defense, your honor.
Oh wait, you could, We did so in Afghanistan and repeated the trick in Iraq and now these are nice and peaceful countries where western democracy has settled and the people feel liberated now.
The coalition of the willing of that era has fallen apart and their governments have been criticized. Heck, it even cost Tony Blair his good standing. Poor guy now makes a living advising obscure Eastern dictators.
Speaking about Eastern. If Russia can't interfere in Ukraine surely we can't interfere in Syria. Or can we?
But surely this is for a good cause. Nobody wants an Islamic State so everybody will be happy if we 'destroy them'.
Well, it depends on who you ask. Not every government where IS is active, is looking forward to spontaneous bombings. Case in point Assad who struggles with a civil war, is still not happy with the idea of Western planes dropping bombs on his country. Call the guy nationalistic, but he will have this in common with most national leaders. He says he would like to be consulted at least…
Iran then, a country which doesn't share any warm religious feelings with the IS Sunnis and a close neighbor in the region; are they in favor of Western bombs? Nope, they are not. They find it slightly hypocrite that coalition members in the recent past supported "financially and military' the very same terrorists in Iraq and Syria which they are now expected to bomb.
Other countries then; surely some members of this coalition must be willing to destroy and destruct as Obama likes saying.
Nah, Germany and even Great Britain say just dropping bombs on a country without consent, is a bridge too far. That leaves us with Denmark, Poland an Austria, well know military air forces which will crumble the Islamic State….
Or the as yet unnamed list of Arab states. Like they will actively fight…
Yes, as Sunni states, they would like to see Syria which has a Shiite majority, fall. However as religious brothers of IS their support will be limited to words, a bit of money and maybe the use by the Americans of their airports.
Saudi-Arabia and Qatar have on paper the means to support this 'coalition' but both have actively supported IS with weapons and money and share the Sunni belief, so they are hardly the reliable partners to build a coalition on.
Forging an international coalition is never easy, but this must be the most cripple one in recent history. Nobody will go first; the US seems to be walking this alone…
Options for the West:
– boots on the ground repeat of Afghanistan/Iraq. Chase IS in Syria and Iraq and defeat them.
Pro: It would deprive IS of their (sources of) wealth like oil, banks etc. and it would destroy their heavy weapons as well as disrupt their organization.
Contra: body bags will come back in disturbing high numbers so public opinion won't accept it. And defeat is possible, but destruction not. IS can survive a military defeat.
– air strikes on strategic targets and kill leaders / destabilize with drones.
Pro: public opinion loves the show of force. No body bags. Air strikes disrupt further progress by IS. Kurds and Iraqi army are helped with an air cover.
Contra: which strategic targets? it's not a regular army so hardly any centralized resources to go after. Enemy knows how drones work. Also they are less effective without intelligence on the ground and IS terror rule will stop special forces and local informants.
– do nothing, let the locals sort it out.
Pro: cheap, no major political risks, Iran and Turkey have sufficient motives to help southern Iraq beat IS.
Contra: public opinion wants 'something' for cruelty shown on television. No strategic gains to be made in the region, they could well decide to go it alone and ignore the West. #politics
Donald Tusk elected European Council President and Federica Mogherini appointed…