The less than 50 troops the US is set to deploy on the ground in Syria will not serve in a combat role, negating the idea that the administration is shifting its core strategy against Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS). But the move will put US ground troops in Syria for the first time since that country's civil war began, and it appears to contradict President Obama's 2013 pledge not to put boots on the ground there. Obama's new anti-Daesh plan might also be too little, too late and its feasibility is questionable. The special operations force is to advise and assist rebel forces combating Daesh. While its intent is to downgrade Daesh, it should be clear by now that the Obama doctrine seeks coalitions abroad. Going it alone is not part of its makeup. It has decided that it cannot fix all the world's problems, nor is it supposed to be the world's policeman. Consequently, Washington is in favor of supporting local forces to reach local ends; it is against doing it for them. Despite the White House's claims that these US forces in Syria do not have a combat mission, there are concerns they could find themselves in combat situations. If they ever did come under attack, that would force the administration to add more boots on the ground, leading to mission creep. This forecast is bolstered by the White House statement which did not rule out sending more troops to Syria if they can succeed in helping erase the gains made by Daesh. There is also the example of last week, when US special operations forces participated in a raid in Iraq with Kurdish Peshmerga forces to rescue Iraqi hostages. An Army Delta Force commando was killed in the mission. But those who say regular US ground forces will be back on Arab soil should recognize that that day is over. Even the Republicans, the party of war, want to build the US military to the point of countervailing strength, so that it may not need to be used. There are also the US presidential elections to consider. The process has become so long that the lame duck period of the administration now appears to have begun with the debates in the electoral primaries. This is the stage when the US is at its most wavering in dealing with affairs in this region. There are, too, the international circumstances that inform that the world does not start and stop with the Middle East and the Arab world, as important as they are. The winds blowing from Europe with regard to the Ukraine crisis are ominous. Russia's moves in Syria cannot be separated from that crisis. Other winds blowing from the South China Sea well illustrate that the international challenges the US faces are not wholly Middle Eastern. Washington will not employ a gung-ho approach to Syria. It is instead looking to the Vienna talks, which grouped allies and opponents of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. While officials disagreed over Al-Assad's future, they did agree to ask the UN to start a process that could lead to a ceasefire and new elections. America has been bombing targets in Syria since September 2014 without stopping Daesh, and it has largely failed in a mission to recruit and train moderate rebels in Syria to take on the task. In contrast, in the space of two weeks, the Russians brought into Syria an assault force roughly equivalent in size to the number of aircraft remaining in Syria, but equipped with more modern weaponry and surveillance systems. It's obvious Russia wants a foothold in Syria. Perhaps Washington wants the same but without the risks. Fifty special forces will not do the trick.
