Need the US, a new anti-IS strategy? Syria’s dictator Assad should be overthrown? America discussed, and US President Barack Obama sends new elite soldiers. He gets deeper and deeper into a war that he wanted to be absolutely avoided.

It is paradoxical. Because Barack Obama hesitated so long and because he wanted to be involved in any case in another Arab war, he must now lead such a war. Since late summer, the US and its allies bombed positions of the “Islamic State” (IS) in Iraq and Syria.

The goal: destroy the IS. The time frame for this: the long term. The strategy: unclear. How does this fit together? In America, concern and anger grow.
The US president has ruled out the use of its own combat troops, yet he always sends more troops to Iraq to train its army overstretched. At the beginning there were in 1600, now Obama wants to send an additional 1,500 soldiers. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says, already in the past few days were first elite US soldiers were sent west of Baghdad on training mission in the embattled Anbar province.

As long as the distinction between fighting and consulting will be maintained? Ie: Will Obama have to break his promise? Sometime next year Mosul to be recaptured, the second largest city in the country. Without US units? “I want to meet at this point no prediction as to whether I am going to recommend that these troops are accompanied in Mosul by US forces, but we will certainly consider it,” said Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey before the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives.

Obama’s fight against IS:Suddenly, in the middle

This is the maelstrom of war. It starts innocently enough, with a few hundred military advisers. And suddenly you’re in the middle. “Mission creep” Americans call it.

Obama wanted nothing to do with the civil war in Syria, fearing a second Iraq adventure. At the moment reminiscent of what is happening in the Middle East, rather at the beginning of the Vietnam War: An increasing number of military advisers to fight a nationalist or Sunni insurgency motivated, surmounted by a communist or radical Islamist ideology. “If you have only left once the dogs of war from the line,” Obama said once overlooking the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “you do not know where they lead you.”

At the hearing of the Armed Services Committee of the Republican Walter Jones brought the atmosphere to the point: “Every genuine strategy has an end point, but so far no one was from the government is able to describe this endpoint.” He sorrow that “since we end up back where we once Donald Rumsfeld was leading.” Rumsfeld, the defense minister who led jointly with George W. Bush the country without sense and strategy in the Iraq war.

Obama did with his strategy of restraint – “Restraint” – improve America’s standing and strengthen the influence. He continued this approach with what the UN called “responsibility to protect” the international community. In order to “prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government” may be about to use military force is justified, inactivity, however, could “still make a lot more complex interventions in the future necessary”. This is O-Ton Obama, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech of 2009.

In retrospect, one can assume: Just Obama’s inaction at the beginning of the Syrian civil war, his refusal to support the moderate rebels early, probably makes much more complex intervention of the presence necessary. Would be if. What is clear is that Obama is this fall about to sacrifice his Restraint Policy.

Obama’s fight against IS:Shitty options

And he has only the choice between bad alternatives; or as he himself says: “shitty options”. Example Assad: How Obama deal with the Syrian dictator who has the advance of the IS-terror war in the first place? On the one hand Assad is now an indirect ally in the fight against the jihadists, on the other hand, the enemy of the moderate rebels. The bombing of the IS-positions using natural Assad, who has since increased again can be used against the moderates his troops. States like Turkey, who work primarily on a fall of Assad, are increasingly disappointed in Obama’s alliance partner.

Now speculate several US media, Obama let work out a new strategy that targets the removal of Assad. In October of Defense hail had the White House let a memo with strategic concerns come: It need a clearer plan on how to deal with the Syrian regime. A renewed dictator fall?

Without question Assad was a “diabolical dictator and war criminal,” says Brookings expert Jeremy Shapiro. But if the United States were not willing or able, after a fall of the dictator Syria impose stability, then it only reinforces the chaos. And the US is about their experiences in Iraq just unwilling says Shapiro. So a fall of Assad would “be able to open the door for extremists to take power in Damascus”.

The location for Barack Obama is more than paradoxical. The President is in a

[adrotate group=”14″]