The US will train a militia of ‘moderate rebels’ from Syria, 5,000 fighters to dislodge President Bashar al-Assad. These moderate rebels will be trained by US experts in Saudi Arabia. No clear definition of a moderate rebel has been provided but one can imagine it will be one of the same groups previously supported since 2011 and launched by Saudi Arabia to oust President Bashar al-Assad. The Arab Spring in Syria, apparently to oust President Assad, turned sour and encouraged al Qaeda and its allied groups who commandeered the weapons of the moderates either through coercion or conquest. Access to weapons by militants has made civil strife in Syria a prolonged and violent affair. There is a strong possibility that these weapons belonging to the moderates will again fall into the hands of Islamic State (IS). The US’s strategy of airstrikes has been successful in averting a human tragedy by protecting the minorities and Kurds, both in Iraq and Syria. This military strategy has succeeded in containing the rapid advance of IS. Large parts of Baiji’s urban centre and parts of the oil refinery have been taken back from the control of IS. Kurdish forces have dislodged IS from the centre of Kobane, though IS still holds on to a large area in the town. These military achievements must be a source of joy for the US and its coalition partners yet they are symbolic and first battles in a war that is expected to continue over years. The spread and influence of IS requires more commitment from the US and its coalition partners, both in terms of military equipment and military recruits for the battlefront. The major drawback in fighting IS is the absence of a professional army in Iraq. The US has resumed an effort to train afresh and re-equip units of the Iraqi army. It might take years before the new Iraqi army has confidence, morale and a professional command structure to be battle-ready. Even then there is no guarantee that the new Iraqi army will, in any way, be better than the previously trained and equipped Iraqi army for which the US spent more than $ 35 billion. The US’s goal to remove Bashar al-Assad is likely to confuse battle lines. Russia has declared support to President Assad and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has stressed upon the US to respect the sovereignty of Syria during any military action. Defeating IS, al Qaeda, its affiliates and President Assad all at the same time is confronting too many enemies. Army units loyal to President Assad are still a credible fighting force and, if given adequate support, can be a challenge to IS. These are rather difficult and contradictory battle aims and do not appear to have very many chances of success. Confusion over alliances and clashes of interest among coalition countries are likely to be prolonged for many years to come. The ideology and call of IS have assumed international importance. According to the New York-based Soufan Group, there are 12,000 foreign IS fighters from 81 countries across the world. About 1,000 fighters are from France alone. Over the years, IS has managed to organise itself into a fighting force. In Iraq and Syria it has an imposing physical presence and in some adjoining countries it is waiting in the shadows. The US and its coalition partners should show a more long term and firm commitment. They should also have more understanding of the problem, especially the historical trends in the region. The present strategy adopted by the US-led coalition of using air power and supplying arms to militias and tribes is inadequate for containing IS. The use of air power did not prove to be of much help in the past as seen in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Proxy militias were in fact counterproductive in Afghanistan. Airpower can be decisive in a battle but it cannot help win an ideologically motivated war. IS has access to large monetary resources and it is has established itself on the ground in Iraq and Syria, along with communication lines. There appears to have been an error all along in assessing the strength of IS. Over the years, recruiting and organising, IS remained below the horizon of western intelligence networks but over the recent past it acquired more influence, causing the US to wake up and take notice. These are all indications that it is possibly going to be a long drawn war that favours IS. A long war will tire out many of the coalition partners who, in years to come, would like to withdraw from a fluid situation in Iraq and Syria, as happened previously in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such an eventuality will lead to more chaos and confusion. (Concluded) The writer is a former inspector general of police. He can be reached at humayunshafi@gmail.com