By Sal Bommarito
Prime Minister David Cameron of Great Britain gave a stirring speech about the beheading of his countryman David Haines. Unfortunately, his words did not hint at active support of his country in the war against ISIS. Supposedly, GB is providing arms to the Kurds in their fight with the terrorists. One talking head indicated that the referendum in Scotland, concerning their proposed cessation from the United Kingdom, was the more pressing issue in the minds of local politicians.
Similarly, no Arab country has agreed to enter the fight with the U.S. It is stunning that countries in the region that have the most to lose if ISIS operatives continue to wreak havoc, are not enthusiastic about killing ISIS fighters. Shiite nations have the most to lose as the terrorists are Sunnis, putting the former in grave danger. It may be that no one wants to side with Americans against other Arabs, even if ISIS poses an existential threat.
Making the objective of eliminating the ISIS threat even more difficult to attain is the fact that the U.S. is not prepared to provide ground troops. How can the president ask the leaders of the Arab world to take political and military risk when he is obviously avoiding it?
The Arabs are going to have to come to grips that ISIS is more of an imminent threat than the U.S. or the opposing religious sect (Shiite vs Sunni). If not, the response to ISIS may not be strong enough to defeat the enemy.
This commentary raises the question of whether the Arab world could possibly live with an ISIS political entity in land belonging to Iraq and Syria. In the eyes of most, ISIS is nothing more than a radical group of fighters who want to kill non-believers, and their funding comes from stealing oil and extortion. The definition of non-believer is person who does not worship God as a Sunni. From almost any perspective, the existence of a group that only wants to murder others is a cancer that must be excised.
It is important for the Obama administration to find some partners in the endeavor quickly. The risks and costs are just too much for the U.S. to assume by itself.