WASHINGTON—The Sunni militant advance in Iraq has reignited a debate in the Obama administration over its policy toward Syria, increasing pressure on the president to act more aggressively against a growing regional threat, according to current and former government officials. Some argue that any U.S. military action against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, in Iraq will fall short if it doesnt hit the groups major strongholds in neighboring Syria. ISIS now occupies territory on both sides of the border. Several compared the ability of militants to easily cross from their Syrian sanctuaries into Iraq to that of extremists based in Pakistan who stage attacks on U.S. interests in neighboring Afghanistan. Syria and Iraq are largely a single problem, said one senior defense official. If we really get into this, you will have to look in to Syria to solve some of these problems. The Obama administration is currently pushing for a political deal in Iraq that could inject confidence in the government in Baghdad. It hasnt reached agreement on the value of airstrikes against Islamic militants, and instead sent small military assessment teams to help Baghdad regain the upper hand on the battlefield. The U.S. military has struggled to collect intelligence on potential ISIS targets in Iraq that could be hit by strikes. Intelligence on ISIS strongholds in Syria is even more limited, said one military official. Moreover, top defense officials including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are opposed to strikes in Syria. The decisive ISIS victories across Iraq have forced the Obama administration to re-engage in two conflicts it has tried to keep at arms length. The U.S. pulled virtually all forces out of Iraq in 2011 and has taken only tentative steps to engage in Syrias civil war, which pits groups including ISIS as well as U.S.-backed militants against President Bashar al-Assad. Theres no question that developments in Iraq are changing the nature of the debate, said Julianne Smith, who served until last year as Vice President Joe Bidens deputy national-security adviser. Were in essence dealing with significant destabilization and the rise of a terrorist group that seems intent not only on taking on the leadership in Baghdad, but also playing a pretty terrifying terrorism role world-wide. Syria appears to be already making similar calculations from its own strategic vantage. Its warplanes on Tuesday struck targets in the western Iraqi province of Anbar on Tuesday, killing at least 50 people, according to local witnesses. President Barack Obamas national-security team discussed the idea of hitting ISIS in Syria after the militants seized key cities in northern Iraq earlier this month, but the administration isnt ready to take such a dramatic step, officials said. Administration officials have indicated that any airstrikes against ISIS might mirror the approach used in places like Yemen, where U.S. drones have hit suspected militants. What this president has made clear is a willingness to act unilaterally anywhere in the world to protect our national security interests, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Tuesday. Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, said the U.S. should consider selective strikes against ISIS in Syria in conjunction with an accelerated effort to arm, train and equip moderate Syrian rebels battling the Sunni extremists for control. I dont see how you confront the Islamic State in Iraq and then stop at the border, especially when the border, de facto doesnt really exist, said Mr. Ford, who left his post last month after growing disillusioned, he says, with American policy. He now serves as a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. Military officials who guided the U.S. through the war in Iraq are wary of jumping back in without considering the potential blowback. Hitting ISIS strongholds in Syria might allow Mr. Assad to focus more firepower on moderate Syrian forces backed by the U.S. Following a two-week long siege and failed negotiations with Iraqi government security forces, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham militant group has taken control of the Beiji oil refinery. That prospect has sparked some calls for America to target both ISIS and the Assad government if it decides to hit targets in Syria. It is essential to combine targeting [ISIS] in Syria with targeting the regime and supporting the moderate opposition, said Kim Kagan, president of the Institute for the Study of War and a longtime advocate for a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Legally, carrying out airstrikes in Syria might require the U.S. to argue that ISIS strongholds in Syria pose a danger to American interests. While Iraq has asked America to help it beat back ISIS, Syria hasnt. Airstrikes also would compel the Pentagon to assess the danger posed by Syrian government air defenses. One of the biggest risks is the possibility that U.S. airstrikes against Sunni militants could be viewed across the region as an attempt by America to tip the balance of power in favor of Shiite forces. That could imperil U.S. relations with key Middle East power brokers, including Saudi Arabia. President Obama has thus far resisted muscular U.S. military involvement in Syria. He has authorized a limited program to provide some Syrian rebels with antitank missiles and a modest program to train the anti-Assad forces. Ms. Smith, the vice presidents former adviser, is among those saying U.S. military strikes on ISIS targets in Syria could be counterproductive at this point. If your motivation is just to stamp out ISIS and act aggressively against a threat to vital U.S. interests it might make sense. But if its also to see what it can do to get Assad to leave, thats a much tougher calculus, she said. —Carol E. Lee contributed to this article. online.wsj/articles/losses-in-iraq-spur-u-s-to-rethink-syria-1403651714
Posted on: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 05:21:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015