The Iraq Coalition Situation, 13 September 2014.

A Reuters reports today that the United States is "comfortable" it can forge an international coalition to fight ISIS, but that Western and Middle Eastern allies are hesitant, and the US could find itself out on a limb. President Barack Obama's vague plan to fight the Islamist militants simultaneously in Iraq and Syria, thrust the United States directly into two different wars in which nearly every country in the Middle East has a stake. The concept of a coalition has been accepted in Western capitals and on Thursday 10 Arab states, including rivals Saudi Arabia and Qatar, agreed to a "co-ordinated military campaign." US Secretary of State John Kerry said in Ankara on Friday : "I'm comfortable that this will be a broad-based coalition with Arab nations, European nations, the United States, others," adding it is "premature" to set out what tasks individual coalition members would perform. A senior French diplomat said : "This coalition has to be efficient and targeted....We have to keep our autonomy. We don't want to be the United States' subcontractor. For the moment they haven't made their intentions clear to us." Reuters reports that the US and Britain pulled out of striking Syrian President Bashar al-Assad last year hours before French planes had been due to take off, leaving President Francois Hollande embarrassed and isolated. This time around Paris wants clear commitment and international legality. "The coalition must be the most legal possible," according to former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine. "It needs members of the Security Council and as many Arab countries as possible and there has to be a follow-up Otherwise it will all start again in three months. There needs to be a long-term vision." That is the reason for a Paris conference on Monday that will bring Iraqi authorities together with 15-20 international players. The talks will be followed by a UN Security Council meeting on September 19 and a heads of state meeting at the UN General Assembly later in September. "The goal is to coordinate aid, support and action for the unity of Iraq and against this terrorist group," Hollande said in Baghdad Friday. Hollande is the first Western leader to visit Iraq since the ISIS advances in June. France has sent weapons to the Iraqi Kurdish fighters, as well as humanitarian aid. It is ready to send 250 special forces troops to help direct strikes for Rafale fighter jets. But its offer is limited because France has more than 5,000 troops in Mali and Central African Republic. Its planned 450 million euros 2014 overseas defense budget is already over a billion euros, at a time when the unpopular government is under severe pressure to cut spending. Britain, Washington's main ally in 2003, has sent mixed messages, stressing that the West should not go over the heads of regional powers or neglect the importance of forming an inclusive Iraq government. Like France, it is also cautious about action in Syria because of legal questions and al-Assad air defenses. In Iraq, it has delivered humanitarian aid, carried out surveillance, given weapons to Kurds and promised training. On military action, Britain supports US air strikes and Prime Minister David Cameron, who faces a re-election vote in nine months, has repeatedly said Britain has ruled nothing out except combat troops on the ground. A British government official said : "We need to keep working closely and talking, thinking about the strategy. It shouldn’t be presented too much as ‘here is the plan, these are the roles, who wants what.'" The Foreign Office Minister said on Friday : "As the global resolve to tackle (ISIS) strengthens, we will consider carefully what role the United Kingdom should play in the international coalition." ~~~~~ Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden on Friday explained his "casual sex" analogy in describing President Obama's sole reliance on airstrikes to combat ISIS - saying it referred to America's commitment to destroy the terrorist group after it beheaded two American journalists. "Our allies and our enemies view that as our limiting our commitment to this enterprise," Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency, told CNN, saying there is "... limited enthusiasm on the part of our allies to take up the role we said we would refuse to do....People don't question American power. What people need to be convinced of is American will....The reliance on air power has all of the attraction of casual sex: It seems to offer gratification but with very little commitment. We need to be wary of a strategy that puts emphasis on air power and air power alone." Republicans attacked the speech for lack of detail. House Speaker John Boehner said : "somebody's boots have to be on the ground." And Hayden said that while he supports intense airstrikes in both countries and US Special Forces in critical strategic roles on the ground, "We do need to have a presence on the ground. I actually think we need to embed inside the Iraqi and the Kurdish forces. We need tactical air-control partners. When we make these kinds of arbitrary distinctions, we get in the way of our own success," Hayden said. ~~~~~ And in a nation tired of war, but worried by an emerging terrorist threat, President Obama's plan to strike ISIS militants is disturbing the usual left-right politics in several races that may decide which party controls the Senate. Republicans who have attacked the President on many issues have lowered their rhetoric and some are avoiding taking a clear stand on his ISIS proposal. The most fragile incumbent Senate Democrats have expressed skepticism at parts of Obama's plan, saying it could lead to a new Middle East war where supposed allies can quickly become enemies. Republicans, who need a net gain of six seats to take control of the Senate, have made attacking Obama and his policies the cornerstone of their Senate campaign, especially in states the President lost in 2012. They had in recent days stepped up their attacks on Obama's foreign policy, trying to tie vulnerable Democrats to an unpopular President. Despite that, several GOP Senate candidates seem wary of taking detailed positions on the President's proposal to fight ISIS militants with air strikes and US-armed Syrian rebels, but not American ground troops. New Hampshire Republican Senate nominee Scott Brown, a former Senator from Massachusetts, criticized Obama's leadership on Friday, but he wouldn't say if he would vote to authorize more military intervention in the Mideast, if elected. "I would need to listen to the generals on the ground and get their input and guidance as I have in the past. When you're...making a decision to send people into harm's way, you need to have all the facts and I don't have those facts." In North Carolina, Republican Senate nominee Thom Tillis said the militants "are growing stronger each day because of President Obama's failed foreign policy and lack of leadership." When it comes to combatting the militants, "no option should be left off the table," said Tillis, who faces first-term Democratic Senator Kay Hagan. Yet when asked about Obama's proposal to arm Syrian rebels fighting a three-way war against both Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and ISIS, Tillis' campaign said he "has reservations about sending arms that could be seized by ISIS terrorists." The same sort of ambivalence can be seen in Colorado, where Democratic Senator Mark Udall and his Republican opponent, Representative Cory Gardner, have suggested that they support the Obama approach - air strikes and armed Syrian rebels, but no US combat ground troops."I will not give this President, or any other President, a blank check to begin another land war in Iraq," Udall said. And Gardner said, "I agree with the President's decision to authorize airstrikes." In place of any disagreement on the policy, Gardner has instead slammed Udall for what he sees as the administration's slow response to the danger and his comment last weekend that the ISIS militants are not "an imminent threat" to the United States. Republican Representative Tom Cotton, running for Senate in Arkansas, said Obama "still hasn't laid out a real strategy to defeat the Islamic State." But Cotton offered no specific position on the President's proposals. Cotton's opponent, incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor, issued a brief statement this week supporting tougher action against ISIS, without mentioning Obama's name. It was similar to the statement of Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu. Both Democratic Senators are seeking re-election in southern states where Obama lost badly in 2012. ~~~~~ Dear readers, this is the situation now -- hesitant coalition members, a US military that sees Obama's plan as insufficient, and a US political response muffled by the coming elections and otherwise unwilling to support President Obama's vague "strategy." We wait and watch and hope, and pray for America's unfailing military.