IF a few cruise missiles and bombing sorties were all it took to neutralise battle-hardened terrorist groups, the world would be a much safer place. However, this is not a practical solution, which is why we must greet with caution the start of the US-led bombing of the self-styled Islamic State in Syria.

Tuesday’s air strikes mark the first time the US, aided by its allies in the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan, have engaged IS in Syria. An aerial campaign targeting the militant group in Iraq has been under way since August. However, in the latter case the government in Baghdad had asked for American help.

In Syria’s case the regime — which has been fighting a brutal civil war against a clutch of opposition groups, including extremist outfits — has mostly been kept out of the loop. Damascus says it was “informed” about the American strikes inside Syria. However, there has been no coordination between Bashar al-Assad’s government and Washington.

The Western camp and its allies have long called for regime change in Syria, which is why the US-led coalition finds itself in a dilemma. When the Syrian civil war began over three years ago, the rebels, including many extremist factions, received considerable outside help to battle Mr Assad. Now that some of these fighters have helped form the nucleus of IS and grown into veritable Frankensteins, and are out of their masters’ control, it is difficult for the West to bury the hatchet with Mr Assad and join forces against the militants.

Many questions remain about what will follow in Syria. After all, even some senior officials in the Western camp have said victory against IS will be difficult without ground forces. And with the US and many in Europe uneasy about putting their own boots on the ground, the million-dollar question is: who will do the dirty work in the field? If plans are being drawn up to arm and train the ‘moderate’ Syrian opposition, two questions emerge: how moderate are these forces and what are their fighting capabilities? It is largely true that most of the best fighters in the Syrian opposition have come from extremist factions. So would the West be replacing one set of obscurantists with another?

The rise of IS has doubtless been facilitated by geopolitical machinations trumping logic and respect for the sovereignty of others. The best solution appears to be for the US and its allies to abandon plans for regime change in Damascus and work with Mr Assad to effectively counter IS and other extremists in Syria.

Iran and Russia also need to be engaged considering their close relationship with Mr Assad, to form a more formidable anti-IS front and to convince the Syrian leader to agree to a negotiated solution to the Syrian crisis with the non-militant opposition once the dust settles.

Published in Dawn, September 24th, 2014