As the broad coalition crumbled, it appears Washington decided there was no time to waste:
- *U.S., PARTNER NATIONS STRIKING ISIS IN SYRIA: PENTAGON
- *U.S. USING FIGHTERS, BOMBERS, TOMAHAWKS TO ATTACK ISIS
[8]
NBC News reports the attack includes drones and is expecting to hit up to 20 targets. FOX is reporting Qatar is among the arab nation coalition (along with UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain), according to Lt. Col. Oliver North, which is rather surprising given their rather well-known support for Al-Nusra.
The bombing of isis was always the easy part. Who takes over was never made clear. And the devil is in the details, always
— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) September 23, 2014 [9]
Clever to do strikes during un gen assembly. World leaders have to accept to deny. Isis strikes.
— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) September 23, 2014 [10]
Told Isis had time to move into civilian areas. Hide weapons. Now theyre on move. Expect followup from all sides
— Richard Engel (@RichardEngel) September 23, 2014 [11]
Live Feed...
Fox reports...
As NBC News reports, [12]
The United States launched airstrikes in Syria against ISIS targets, sources tell NBC News.
The U.S. military plans to strike up to 20 targets — logistics, fuel and weapons depots; training sites; troop encampments; command and control sites; and headquarters for the Sunni fighters.
The U.S. military will deploy manned and unmanned air assets, including F-22s, B-1 bombers, F-16s, F-15s and F/A-18s.
The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush is at the ready in the Persian Gulf, and the USS Arleigh Burke, a guided missile destroyer that fires Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs), is in the Red Sea.
* * *
Statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby
TAMPA, Fla. – The Department of Defense released the following statement from Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby today:
“I can confirm that U.S. military and partner nation forces are undertaking military action against ISIL terrorists in Syria using a mix of fighter, bomber and Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles.”
“Given that these operations are ongoing, we are not in a position to provide additional details at this time.
The decision to conduct theses strikes was made earlier today by the U.S. Central Command commander under authorization granted him by the commander in chief.
We will provide more details later as operationally appropriate.”
* * *
And here is President Obama disagreeing with John McCain's call for airstrikes in Syria in 2012 [13]...
Sen. John McCain today called for the United States to begin air strikes against the government of Syria, but the Obama administration indicated it did not agree with his strategy.
“Foreign capitals across the world are looking to the United States to lead, especially now that the situation in Syria has become an armed conflict,” the Republican from Arizona said on the Senate floor. “But what they see is an administration still hedging its bets — on the one hand, insisting that Assad’s fall is inevitable, but on the other, unwilling even to threaten more assertive actions that could make it so.”
But a senior Obama administration official indicated to ABC News that the president and his advisers did not agree with the Republican senator.
“We share his concern and outrage about what’s taking place,” the official said. “We’re also concerned that further military intervention will accelerate the conflict on the ground and worsen the humanitarian situation without stopping the violence the Syrian regime is committing against its own people.”
The official said the U.S. “wants to keep putting pressure on the Assad regime.”
The official noted that the Syrian situation is very different from Libya in many key technical ways, that make them question how effective airstrikes against the Syrian regime would be.
* * *
Summarizing in under 140 characters...
U.S., PARTNER NATIONS STRIKING ISIS IN SYRIA: PENTAGON. Translation: Qatar bombing the Assad regime to clear way for its natgas pipeline
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 23, 2014 [14]
* * *
The damage has begun...
Ar-Raqqah #Syria [15] under attack earlier pic.twitter.com/aDQ0FlR0ts [16]
— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) September 23, 2014 [17]
"The US has launched nearly 200 strikes against ISIS targets in Iraq." New strikes in Syria: http://t.co/EsaOSU1m1d [18] pic.twitter.com/zaDBdyqaaw [19]
— CBS News (@CBSNews) September 23, 2014 [20]
#Breaking [21]: #IS [22] instructs its fighters to leave its #HQs [23] in ar-Raqqah to the rural areas - Activists #Syria [15]
— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) September 23, 2014 [24]
#Breaking [21]: 4 US missiles fall on Kafrdayan near Sarmada #Idlib [25] - Activists pic.twitter.com/hk80r0rwqC [26]
— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) September 23, 2014 [27]
#Breaking [21]: The palace of ar-Raqqah governor in destroyed in airstrikes - Activists pic.twitter.com/7ZxbZ1hZwv [28]
— Zaid Benjamin (@zaidbenjamin) September 23, 2014 [29]
* * *
As we have noted previously, Russia is entirely against a U.S. intervention in Syria which targets essentially the Assad regime for the simple reason that all such an action would do is fast track Qatar's pipeline to Europe and leave Gazprom, pardon the pun, in the cold... (via Maria Dubovikova of Al-Arabiya) [30]
U.S. President Barak Obama addressed the nation on Wednesday, saying that the U.S. is going to expand the air campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). He said he would not hesitate to authorize direct strikes against the militant group and its fighters in Syrian territory.
This decision, despite the demonstrated enthusiasm and assertiveness of the U.S. president, is very unlikely to be effective and could even worsen the crisis, pushing the situation to the point of no-return.
First of all, the Syrian government sustainably strikes the positions of the rebels, including ISIS, with relative success. Thus it is quite evident that airstrikes are not effective in fighting ISIS. According to the fighters’ revelations [31], they know where to hide in the case of airstrikes as they have gained experience in the years they have been fighting against Assad’s forces. This is common for both moderate Syrian opposition fighters and ISIS. Despite the will not to put boots on the ground, the U.S. has no other option if they intend to lead the international coalition. Moreover, it’s impossible to create an effective coalition and battlefront if Iran and Syria are not to be included.
No clear strategy
Obama has no clear strategy to fight ISIS and the terrorist group does not consider him a threat. It took a long time for Obama to admit that ISIS is a terrorist organization and a true threat. It took the beheading of American citizens to make Obama publically realize this.
There are deep concerns that the U.S. will bomb not only ISIS positions in Syria, but also the Syrian government forces
It appeared to be a strong enough argument to start thinking about what should be done to stop the threat. For a rather long time, ISIS fighters were opportune terrorists as they were fighting against Damascus. The policy of dividing the terrorists into good terrorists and bad terrorists seems like a bad joke by the White House.
The decision announced by the U.S. president cannot be taken out context of America’s intense tensions with Russia. Russia was the third country to criticize the U.S. decision to bomb ISIS terrorists on Syrian territory, after the Syrian and Iranian governments. It’s not the best company to keep when opposing Obama’s decision in terms of international prestige and perception, however, it was to be expected.
The criticism came both from Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Alexander Lukashevich.
The criticism is based on one key point: without the Syrian government’s agreement and a UNSC mandate, the U.S. strikes in Syria would be a gross violation of international law and should be considered an act of aggression. Moreover, Moscow didn’t pass over in silence the double standard approach of Washington, as while helping Iraq to fight the terrorists on its territory, the U.S. president called for approval for more funding of the so-called armed opposition in Syria. Also, recent revelations by fighters in the pages of the Western press purport that the moderates in Syria are absolutely demoralized, weak and their ranks thinned out as the fighters join ISIS. In light of such reports, it is not clear which party Obama is going assist in this case and how his calls correspond to the real situation on the ground.
Heightened U.S. awareness
In general, Russia welcomes heightened U.S. awareness of the crisis – it is better late than never. Minister of Foreign Affairs Serguei Lavrov even criticized the U.S. on September 10 over its supposed double standard approach, saying [32] that “the Americans are bombing them (ISIS) on Iraqi territory, but they do nothing with them in Syria.” Russia would even approve the U.S. strikes against ISIS fighters in case of Washington’s cooperation with Damascus on the matter.
But now there are deep concerns that the U.S. will bomb not only ISIS positions in Syria, but also the Syrian government forces. These concerns can be explained by the fact that evidently the strikes against ISIS could play into hands of Damascus and this doesn’t correspond with the U.S. interests. Taking into account that during all these years of the Syrian war the U.S. could have been trying to realize its plans to bomb Syria, they could take advantage of this situation.
If the U.S. bombs the positions of government forces, by mistake or with malicious intent, this would have doubly unpredictable consequences, both at the international and regional levels.
For sure, this will trigger a new crisis with Russia. The crisis of credibility in bilateral relations will reach the highest point. Russia will ultimately respond to the possible aggression. But how? It’s a big question with a difficult to predict answer. Moreover, possible strikes against Damascus’ forces will blow up the remains of credibility of international law, international systems and institutions. After the meeting over Iraq in Paris on Monday, Russia’s foreign minister stressed [33] that the international community should build common action “on a solid foundation of the United Nations Charter and U.N. counter-terrorist instrument and mechanisms.” The call to respect the U.N. Charter is clear and logical, however its solidness, as well as that of the U.N. system in general, is already in doubt. Any further violations of international law and U.N. principles will definitely be the last straw, leading to international chaos.
Regional level
On the regional level, the U.S.’s possible bombing of Damascus’ forces could strengthen ISIS. Relations with Iran could become more exacerbated, that could worsen the cooperation with it on other vital issues such as its nuclear program. The Iranian rejection of cooperating with the U.S. against ISIS is already an unpleasant turn [34], mostly conditioned by already an committed mistake – Iran was not invited to the international conference on Iraq in Paris.
If the U.S. only strikes ISIS positions on Syrian territory and refrains from bombing Syrian government forces – this would be better for stability and be more predictable in terms of consequences, however it would never resolve the ISIS problem. Airstrikes are inefficient. A full-scale intense ground operation is needed. A true strategy is required, not a strategy of clichés, useless declarations and beautiful words for the ears of American citizens.
Moreover, it should be remembered that ISIS is primarily an idea, an idea making even Europeans and Americans leave their homes and join the group. Ideas cannot be defeated by bombs, actually, bombs make them stronger.
U.S. involvement in the anti- ISIS drive is indispensable, both in Syria and Iraq, especially taking into account its military capabilities. However, it is only positive as part of a sophisticated strategy approved by the international community. It is time the international community elaborate on the strategy to deal with ISIS.
* * *
...In other words, expect a Russian response shortly...