In the United States, the Paris attacks and ISIL threats to target Washington have re-opened the debate about the right US strategy in Syria. President Obama has vowed to destroy the Islamist militants but if ground troops are not an option what strategically is the way forward?
Euronews talked to experts and analysts in the foreign policy community
Heather Conley, Center for Strategic and International Studies:
“I think the administration is placing an enormous amount of weight on the political process that was announced in Vienna over the weekend, hoping that it bears some fruit.”
Others feel in the short run, more military action might be feasible such as increasing air strikes and special forces operations but
a broader strategy should also deal with the social and economic conditions that allow ISIL to exist and thrive.
Tamara Cofman Wittes, Brookings Institution:
“We need to act militarily to try and push back the immediate threat that is faced by many in the region and in the west from ISIS. But we also need to deal with the conditions that allow it to exist, give it scope to plan these kinds of attacks. And that is a much harder problem.”
So while “Solidarity” may be the watchword the preference leans towards “jaw jaw not war war”. Euronews correspondent Stefan Grobe reports:“While Republican presidential candidates are calling for a much more muscular military involvement in Syria, there is no such appetite in Washington’s foreign policy community, certainly not as a long-term strategy. And the American public remains deeply sceptical.”