The UAE “ceased its participation because of concerns over a lack of contingency plans to rescue downed aircrew.” Indeed. The whole enterprise against the Islamic State has been poorly thought out and continues to be hamstrung by the prevailing denial and refusal to examine its guiding ideology.
“UAE halted Isis air attacks after pilot capture,” by Ian Black, the Guardian, February 4, 2015:
The United Arab Emirates has suspended its air attacks against the Islamic State in Syria since the capture of a Jordanian pilot who was burned alive by the jihadi group, it has emerged.
US officials confirmed that the UAE, one of the four Arab states in the anti-Isis coalition, had ceased its participation because of concerns over a lack of contingency plans to rescue downed aircrew….
The UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain joined the coalition when attacks began in September. All have flown sorties against Isis targets, but in the absence of any statistics in US military communiques and silence in their own capitals, most observers believe their participation has been largely symbolic.
President Barack Obama was keen to have Sunni Arab support to avoid the impression that the US alone was fighting the jihadi group. But critics, in Jordan and elsewhere, still attack the operation as an “American war” that is doing little to turn the tide against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria….
Isn’t the “coalition” supposed to be fighting the Islamic State, not Assad?