The latest decision is against Obama’s earlier promises not to “put boots on the ground” in Syria or “engage in combat operations” against ISIS. Obama in an address to the nation in September 2013 had said, “My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan.”

The move undoubtedly implies that the situation has turned grave and also detrimental to the interest of the USA. The Obama administration also did not explain how sending Special Forces to work alongside Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State was compatible with his earlier policy.

Obama was elected on the promise to pull back US troops from the Middle East. His announcement to deploy military is the latest in a series of U-turns and broken promises. If the Obama administration is to be believed these forces will supposedly be “advising and assisting” rebel armies in the northern Syria who are fighting ISIS, including Kurdish forces, while not engaging in direct combat. Incidentally the announcement is silent about the contingent of CIA-backed rebels within Syria who, in addition to fighting Isis, are attacking the Assad regime. It’s unclear how the special forces will fit into that equation.

For five years America has been assisting the rebels opposed to the Assad. But at no stage it showed its keenness to fight the ISIS. In fact the ISIS emerged as a significant force during this period. While the latest decision to send troops to Syria puts a question mark on the credibility of Barack Obama’s presidency it has also turned suspicious the USA in the eyes of the global fraternity. This decision is being viewed as a machination to derail and counter the Russian military initiative.

It is astonishing that the US instead of opting for a coordinated action with Russia was pursuing the line of direct intervention. It is not yet clear whether the deployment would be temporary or permanent in nature. This move coming from a leader that he would pull back the US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is certainly intriguing. New US plans to beef up its military response in the Middle East smack of fear. The White House is still clinging to the notion that the 2001 Authorization of Military Force against Al-Qaida – meant for the war in Afghanistan – gives them the authority to wage indefinite war against ISIS, which did not exist in 2001 in Syria.
The sense of losing the importance and end of hegemony has been primarily responsible for US resorting to this step. In 2014 Obama had announced airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq but claimed the effort would “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil”. He had also said “These American forces will not have a combat mission. We will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.” But now Obama is keen for military intervention. This underlines the nature of the threat perception that is staring at the face of Obama and US.

It is worth recalling that in 2003 President George Bush had also launched a large-scale combat operation in Iraq. It is not clear in what way the Syria comb at would be different from Iraq action. A spokesman of the foreign office tried to clarify but it could not convince: “These forces do not have a combat mission.”

What is also significant in this case is with Russia already on offensive the risk of the US being dragged into fighting not just ISIS, but the Syrian government, or even Russian and Iranian forces operating in the country would increase many fold. One thing is absolutely right that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment to avoid getting dragged directly into the war. In fact by going back on his promise Obama is putting American lives at risk and drawing the United States further into an armed conflict.

The US watchers also look at the development to create pressure on the international fraternity to goad Russia and ask it to stop from military intervention and ensure the removal of Assad just ahead of crucial peace talks in Vienna, which are led by secretary of state of John Kerry and joined for the first time by the foreign minister of Iran.

Meanwhile the allies of USA have stepped up their campaign against Russia and have started alleging that Russia’s military buildup in Syria has simply complicated already complex situation. Russia’s intervention has made the complex pattern of alliances and enmities in Syria still more intricate. Syria is roughly divided between four groups: regime forces supported by Hezbollah; Isis; other Islamist groups; and more moderate opposition groups. Kurdish militias separately control areas in the north of the country. (IPA Service)