CNN does relate one specific report, from Bahrain’s government, which says it "carried out … air strikes against a number of selected targets of terrorist groups and organisations, and destroyed them." Otherwise we are mostly left wondering about the meaning of both "direct" and "participation." More from CNN:
Saudi Arabia: … The Saudi government has already agreed to train moderate rebel fighters on its soil, according to U.S. officials. [No mention of direct participation, as in launching its own strikes from the air.]
United Arab Emirates: The country was previously reported to have offered to support the U.S. attacks against ISIS…. [No mention of direct participation.]
Qatar: The Gulf nation had already flown a number of humanitarian flights to help anti-ISIS efforts in Iraq. But its involvement in the military strikes in Syria significantly raises its commitment…. [Again, "direct" involvement? No word.]
Jordan: … Jordan’s involvement in the airstrikes is part of its "position on combating terrorism and protecting its security and borders"….
As I noted earlier, Reuters, on the other hand, reports that Jordan "carried out airstrikes against ‘terrorist groups’ that were plotting to attack Jordan," which seems to clear up the mystery of Jordan’s "involvement."
Thus with respect to Jordan and Bahrain, we have some clarity. But what of Jordan and Bahrain’s endurance, what of the other three, and more important, what was the overall ratio of Arab states’ aircraft and U.S. warplanes deployed in today’s strikes–and what will future ratios be? For the American public to buy into the concept of a true coalition fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, answers to these questions are imperative. Otherwise, the veil of "coalition" hype might soon come down and we’ll be left looking starkly at a U.S. war.
