The Fight Against IS: What Next, Mr. President?

Even after the meeting of top military officers from the countries that have teamed up in the so-called coalition against the “Islamic State,” the basic dilemma for the American president, Barack Obama, remains the same. He has for some time indicated that his goal is to “weaken and destroy” the terrorist militia. Airstrikes against the “Islamic State group’s” positions and facilities in Iraq and Syria are means to this end.

But the particulars of the struggle around the North Syrian city of Kobani show once again that airstrikes are not enough to really stop the Islamic State group’s advance and to permanently influence events on the ground, to say nothing of “destroying” the Islamic State group. For one, this requires troops, but in no way does Obama want to deploy American soldiers; at the same time, Kurdish fighters avoid Turkish weapons and transit across Turkey. Up to now, Ankara has only allowed tanks up to the border. The demonstrative aim of this move, whether one should be intimidated or impressed, remains unclear. Should Kobani fall to the Islamic terrorist militia, it would be a disastrous signal: In the fight against the Islamists, Turkey has figuratively and literally stood on the sidelines; the air attacks under American leadership have not impeded the Islamic State group’s advance. This has effectively been a defeat!

It’s understandable that Obama balks at sending combat troops into a Muslim country again. After all, a theme of his presidency has been to end the long decade of war that followed September 11th. He certainly does not want to extend it. But he also cannot ignore the fact that the deployment of battle-seasoned ground troops is essential, whoever sends them.

During the Kosovo War, the Kosovar-Albanian UÇK supplied the ground troops; NATO flew airstrikes. That’s also how it was in early 2011; Western states flew airstrikes against military targets in Libya and insurgent militias against Libyan ruler Gaddafi operated on the ground. In the Iraq War, the Americans placed their own troops next to those from Great Britain (in the main) against Saddam Hussein’s army; in Afghanistan, airstrikes relied upon American Special Forces and Afghan opponents of the Taliban.

The situation today depicts a completely different picture: In Iraq, the army proves itself incapable of standing up against the fighters of the “Islamic State group”; in Syria, the Kurdish defenders of Kobani are weak, the military supplies insufficient and the so-called moderate rebels against the Assad regime are pushed to the margins and increasingly less fit for action.

One may assume that Obama is aware of this situation, as well as having heard the accusations made against him of self-delusion. The accusation that he wavered much too long over the Syrian conflict has been levied for some time, including from previous members of his administration. If he is not supposed to create the coalition against the Islamic State group through an approach that obliges its participants — one that is both realistic and has a chance for success — then his already damaged reputation as a decisive leader will suffer further harm. And there’ll be nothing but scorn and derision left for the killers of the “Islamic State group” and the United States.