What Is Behind U.S. Mission 'Shift' Into Syria? Do You Think This Shift Will Be Enough?

2015-11-03T11:11:47-05:00

Military and foreign policy experts say the shift in strategy against ISIS announced by the White House is overdue, but warned that it might not be enough.

The White House announced on Friday it would put fewer than 50 special operations forces into Syria to work with moderate opposition groups fighting ISIS. The move came amid criticism that the U.S. strategy for defeating ISIS through airstrikes and training local fighters hasn't worked.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow and national security specialist at the Brookings Institution, told NBC News that the evidence has been mounting for some time.

"Clearly, our Syria strategy has been failing for four years," he said. "The renewed tensions in U.S.-Turkey collaboration, the lack of progress in establishing a safe zone in the north and working together with the Kurds, and now the Russian intervention have underscored how much of a dilemma we face."

"So while some of us have viewed the situation in Syria as very serious for a long time, it is increasingly hard for the administration even to attempt to argue otherwise," he said.

The White House stressed Friday that the military moves were an "expansion" rather than a "change" in U.S. strategy against ISIS.

The special operations forces could work with Kurdish and allied actors who have come together under the umbrella of the "Syrian Democratic Forces," according to a senior U.S. official.

"It will not be their responsibility to lead the charge up the hill," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters, acknowledging that the commandos will be in a perilous situation. "There is no denying the amount of risk that they are taking on here."

Retired Army Col. Jack Jacobs, a military analyst for NBC News and MSNBC, said that it is possible the number of U.S. forces needed and the time required to complete the mission could increase over time.

It's not clear how much of the administration's announcement was about something new or an admission of something that's already occurring, said Kevin Baron, a national security and military analyst for NBC News.

"This has been brewing, the idea the Pentagon wants to talk about the way the war has been executed," said Baron, who is editor of Defense One.

"A few things forced their hand," he added.

One of those things was the circumstances surrounding the death of Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler, killed during a raid by U.S. and Kurdish commandos in Iraq on a prison where ISIS was holding captives.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter late last week acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said, telling the Senate Armed Services committee that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria in an attempt to increase pressure on the terror group.

The White House on Friday again stressed the administration has "no intention of long term ground combat."

Earnest drew a contrast between the "large scale, long-term combat operation in Iraq" under former President George W. Bush and the Obama administration's mission in Syria.

Obama "does not believe that that military option was in our best interest and he does not believe that that is something we should do again," Earnest told reporters on Friday.

"So that is why our special operations personnel inside of Syria have a very different mission ... to build the capacity of local forces so they can be even more effective," he said.

Such distinctions are going to be a key part of White House messaging and strategy, military and foreign policy experts said.

"This is the way the war on terrorism is going to be fought and is going to be fought for the foreseeable future," Baron said. "What's going to change is the way the Obama administration talks about it."

What's Behind U.S. Mission 'Shift' Into Syria?

Military and foreign policy experts say the shift in strategy against ISIS announced by the White House is overdue, but warned that it might not be enough.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Nov 3 at 2015 11:23 AM

2015-11-03T11:23:50-05:00

I've said it once and I'll say it again, we will be there for a long time.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-11-03T11:24:53-05:00

I think once agian we are entering into a conflict with too few boots on the ground (for political reasons) to win a decisive victory.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 11:25 AM

2015-11-03T11:25:44-05:00

no ... this administration always under do on foreign policy.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Nov 3 at 2015 11:54 AM

2015-11-03T11:54:08-05:00

What's behind it? Liberals shifting to a more hawkish position prior to a general election cycle. Happens every 4 years....with lesser impact in off presidential cycles. That said, this administration has been leading from behind for it's entire administration. The only time Obama is forceful and opinionated enough to get in front of an issue is if it belittle local law enforcement or castigates those who disagree with him. I must give him credit however for staying the course on his Marxist ideology.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Nov 3 at 2015 12:42 PM

2015-11-03T12:42:13-05:00

I don't know what is on BHO's mind. But it can't be good, he is no Putin.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Nov 3 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-11-03T12:52:29-05:00

We've known for a while that no Anti-Daesh strategy could leave them a safe haven in Syria but we've been reluctant to take a more engaged stance there. I'm guessing the entrance of Russia has forced us to re-evaluate that policy. Welcome back to the Cold War, folks!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 3 at 2015 1:53 PM

2015-11-03T13:53:45-05:00

Are the moderates even relevant in Syria?

Response by Sgt Tom Vaughn made Nov 4 at 2015 10:13 AM

2015-11-04T10:13:05-05:00

Democrats said President Bush was starting another Viet Nam !!
He INVADED Iraq
Obama is sending in Advisors that are not slowed to attack !!
Sounds more like a Viet Nam case than it did invading Iraq and Afghanistan !
I grew up watching the war in Viet Nam , having family killed and wounded in Viet Nam. And going there as a Marine myself .
Syria is Obamas Viet Nam
and he will leave the mess for the next president to take the fall

Response by COL Ted Mc made Nov 4 at 2015 2:11 PM

2015-11-04T14:11:11-05:00

MSgt Curtis Ellis - Master Sergeant; Unless you can make the ocean friendly the fish will continue to swim in it.

Fifty people is NOT enough to fight ISIS directly and it probably isn't enough to make the ocean friendly either.

However, at present the two SIGNIFICANT forces are ISIS and Assad. Defeating either of them is going to strengthen the other (and both of them are very good at co-opting the bits and pieces of the "moderates" that they want to separate off from the "opposition").

The one "solution" that no one appears to be thinking about is "accepting" ISIS at its own word and "recognizing" it as a country. That would mean that the US could declare war on it and hold the members of ISIS responsible for any "war crimes" which they have committed. It also means that the US would NOT be "invading Syria" at all - it would be invading "the Caliphate" which the vast majority of the Muslim world does not recognize as "THE Caliphate" and would give them the opportunity to chip in and "deal with the heretics".