Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Syria's slippery slope [Editorial]

President Obama's decision last weekend to launch U.S. surveillance flights over Syria in preparation for possible airstrikes against the Islamist militants who have overrun large swaths of the country since June has brought the U.S. another step closer to direct involvement in the years-long civil war there. But it still hasn't resolved the most vexing question facing U.S. policymakers: How does one reverse the military gains of the radical Islamic State, which is now menacing Iraq as well, without at the same time strengthening Syrian President Bashar Assad's hold on power?

Ever since the popular uprising against Mr. Assad began in 2011, Mr. Obama has insisted the Syrian dictator must step down. But the administration has done little to hasten that process. Mr. Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is surely aware of polls showing Americans are reluctant to get involved in another messy Middle East conflict. Moreover, the president shared the concerns of his top military advisers that sending weapons and equipment to the moderate Syrian opposition risked seeing them eventually fall into the hands of radical Islamists affiliated with al-Qaida.

Initially, at least, Mr. Obama may have thought that Russia, Mr. Assad's strongest backer, could be persuaded to cooperate in brokering a peace that obliged Mr. Assad to voluntarily give up power. In retrospect, such hopes seem badly misplaced. Russia not only has refused to pressure Mr. Assad into stepping aside but is actively working to strengthen his military. Meanwhile, the radical Islamic State has emerged as the strongest Syrian opposition faction and expanded its operations into Iraq, where it now threatens the Shiite-led government in Baghdad as well as Kurds in the north using U.S. weapons it captured from the Iraqi Army.

Mr. Obama already has authorized U.S. airstrikes against ISIS militants besieging the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. The strikes temporarily succeeded in halting ISIS' advance and allowed Kurdish pesh merga militias to retake some nearby towns previously occupied by the militants. But U.S. officials warn that ISIS is likely to regroup and resume its offensive in Iraq and that the group cannot be decisively defeated unless the U.S. also targets its forces in Syria. So far, Mr. Obama has stuck to his refusal to intervene militarily in Syria's civil war, but events now may be forcing his hand.

There's no question that the U.S. and its allies have the capability to strike ISIS in Syria. The real issue is to what end? Airstrikes alone are unlikely to break the group's determination to fight — witness the failure of the massive Israeli airstrikes in Gaza to stop Hamas-led fighters from continuing to launch rockets against Israeli cities. And Mr. Obama insists that even if he does order airstrikes in Syria, he draws the line at putting American boots on the ground there.

But ISIS can no more be defeated from the air than Hamas, no matter how many tons of ordnance are dropped on it. Sooner or later, Kurdish and Iraqi government forces will have to engage ISIS militants on the ground to clear them from the areas in Iraq they now control.

Whether the Kurdish militias and the Iraqi army are up to that task is unclear. But even if they are that won't solve the conundrum posed by ISIS' presence in Syria, where Mr. Assad is skillfully playing off the radical Islamists against the moderate opposition by encouraging them to fight each other while he husbands his own forces to defeat whichever rebel faction ultimately emerges as victor.

Either way it's hard to see how U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Syria won't put the Obama administration on a slippery slope toward becoming more deeply involved in that country's civil war, and in a way that forces it to choose between the lesser to two malignant evils, the Islamic State or Mr. Assad. The irony is that's the very nightmare scenario Mr. Obama for so long sought to avoid, but at this point there may be no way around it.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Obama seeks aid for rebels in Syria

    Obama seeks aid for rebels in Syria

    President asks Congress to train and arm fighters

  • Baltimore needs BRT

    Baltimore needs BRT

    Recently, Lt. Gov. Boyd Rutherford announced that Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) should be considered as an alternative instead of the now-shelved Red Line light rail system ("Who knew Hogan, Rutherford were such transit geeks," July 15). Why? Costs. Light rail is extremely expensive — to the tune of...

  • Orioles: No gnomes, please

    Orioles: No gnomes, please

    In light of the Orioles recent near-death spiral, many fans have pinned the blame on the Buck Showalter Garden Gnome giveaway ("Buck Showalter garden gnome briefly causes long lines at Camden Yards," June 28). True, their record since the promotion has been dismal and Buck Showalter was warned...

  • Baltimore remains a fiber desert

    Baltimore remains a fiber desert

    Like Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's Smarter Baltimore draft report, the commentary, "Broadband for Baltimore" (July 27), has solid recommendations for building high speed Internet in Baltimore. But like that report, it ignores the principal reason that Baltimore City doesn't have broadband. Verizon's...

  • The evil of Iran

    The evil of Iran

    We sat 5,000-plus strong in the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in the District of Columbia for three intense days of Christians United For Israel (CUFI) 10th summit on July 12-14. We came from all across the nation (including 95 members from other countries and 500 college students). We...

  • Iran deal — war now or war later

    Iran deal — war now or war later

    In its recent editorial, The Sun adopts President Barack Obama's primary argument in favor of the Iran deal — that the only choice is the deal or war ("A 'good enough' agreement," July 24). No one wants war. But the choice here is not war or no war. It is war now or war later.