Obama’s Syria strategy under attack

The future of Syrian president Bashar Al Assad is a bone of contention not only between U.S and Russia, but also among U.S politicians and policymakers. As the civil war drags on, President Barack Obama’s Syria strategy is coming under attack domestically on three questions – should the U.S fight the Islamic State and Mr. Assad at the same time, should there be deployment of U.S combat forces on the ground and whether the policy of zero civilian casualty is rendering U.S airstrikes in Syria ineffective.

Meanwhile, a meeting on Friday of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) countries in New York is expected to narrow their differences over the future of Assad. A UN Security Council resolution later is expected to endorse a political process that will kick off in January towards an election in 18 months in Syria.

Early this week in Moscow, U.S secretary of State John Kerry had after a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin said both countries viewed Syrian conflict "fundamentally very similarly.” Mr. Kerry also declared that the U.S was “not seeking so-called regime change.” But this did not mean an agreement between the two countries.

“…not everybody is unified about the future of Assad inside the ISSG. …What’s important for the United States at this point in the process is that we keep driving towards the ultimate objective, which is a Syrian government away from Assad.. And one of the key issues still outstanding is the future of Assad and not only how long does he stay, but in what capacity does he stay. All that work still needs to be done,” State Department spokesperson John Kirby said on Thursday.

Mr. Obama is facing strident opposition criticism for his Syria strategy, which the Republicans say is failing. In the presidential debate this week, Senator Ted Cruze reiterated his call for “carpet bombing,” while frontrunner Donald Trump said Mr. Obama must choose who is the bigger enemy - IS or Assad. Mr. Trump had earlier called for ‘Russian style’ bombing, which a U.S military spokesman had called “reckless and irresponsible.” Several Republican candidates also called for ground combat against IS, something that Mr Obama has been particularly wary of.

However, conventional conservative view is more nuanced than the admiration shown for Mr. Putin by Mr. Trump. Mr. Assad cannot be allowed to continue, Douglas J. Feith, former under secretary of defence and a key adviser to George W Bush on Middle East, told The Hindu in an interview. “Assad’s survival in power would be an important victory not only for Russia, but for Iran too. America has a large interest in preventing that.”

Mr. Feith, however, agrees, “the military operation is extremely constrained by the insistence on zero civilian casualty.” “There has to be an assessment of the potential collateral damage against the military objective of a particular mission. How can we succeed if we consider drivers of IS oil tankers civilian targets and therefore do not bomb them?”

Though non-committal on the question of boots on the ground, Mr. Feith believes that is a relevant issue. “Everything cannot be achieved from the air and there has to be some ground presence. We already have some presence on the ground, but whether that is good enough or not has to be decided on the basis of current information. If I were in administration that is a question I would ask now - whether we are doing what is required to meet our objective of defeating the IS.”