MESOP FACING KOBANE : FIRST ANALYSIS OF U.S. AIRSTRIKES

 “If the airstrikes are a recognition that the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State by fighting it only in Iraq—and leaving it a haven in Syria—they are to be welcomed. As he did in August in Iraq, Mr. Obama would be justified in shaping the campaign to rescue a vulnerable population—in this case the Syrian Kurds,” writes the Washington Post.

“[This] is a strategy of mitigating ISIS’ threats and containing its influence within Iraq and the surrounding region. Yet, while mitigation and containment will drive the U.S. counterterrorism strategy regarding ISIS as a reality, the Obama administration (and Congress and the media) will pretend that the strategic end state is to defeat and destroy them. So when you hear the White House promise to destroy ISIS, don’t believe them, but consider why it is politically mandatory that they make such an outrageous and impossible claim,” writes CFR’s Micah Zenko.

“Early strikes in Raqqa appear so far to focus on fixed infrastructure and other static targets, but given ISIS’s insurgent experience at operating underground, seeking out these fixed targets will yield diminishing returns. Although leadership strikes modeled on U.S. counterterrorism operations against al Qaeda and its affiliates could have high political and psychological value, these types of decapitation campaigns are often lengthy, intensive efforts with uncertain results. The significant autonomy enjoyed by ISIS’s ground commanders makes them critically important to their military operations but also potentially resilient to U.S. decapitation efforts,” write Daniel Trombly and Yasir Abbas in the Daily Beast.