Disasterous defeat

CNN quoted unnamed high-ranking officials close to President Obama, who strongly assume that the Kurdish border city in northern Syria will be conquered by the "Islamic State" (IS) terror militia. Even Martin Dempsey, America's top-ranking military official, told ABC News, "I fear Kobani will fall," giving no hope to the trapped fighters there. US Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear Wednesday that the protection of Kobani should not be a strategic goal of the US. As horrific as the events in Kobani have been, "the original targets of our efforts have been the command and control centers, the infrastructure," of IS, Kerry said.

Ineffective airstrikes

Nevertheless, the US armed forces, together with their allies, have greatly expanded their airstrikes in the area of Kobani in the past few days, failing however to halt the IS advance. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post made an unprecedented declaration that the US is " facing a catastrophic defeat in the war Obama launched with caveats, restrictions and self-defeating limitations."

Wrong Strategy?

In contrast, Mike O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution does not believe that the battle for Kobani and the until-now ineffective US airstrikes are proof of a failed strategy. "The simple fact that an additional city falls, as tragic as that would be, is not proof that the strategy is wrong," he said.

Middle east expert Jim Phillips of the conservative Washington think tank "Heritage Foundation," judged it differently in an interview with Deutsche Welle. Obama's strategy "is on the way to failure." But he also said it remains to be seen whether the airstrikes, "especially after they have been strengthened, may as yet have a noticeable effect."

More than airstrikes needed

For Phillips it is admittedly already clear that bombings are not enough to degrade and destroy the Islamic State. "Without better information on the ground, the airstrikes will not have the decisive effect that the administration would let many Americans believe," he said.

In contrast to Iraq, the United states is lacking the conditions required for success. "In Syria it is strategically more difficult to operate because there are no real US allies on the ground," who can prepare and guide airstrikes, Philips said. Also, if the current priority of the US strategy "definitely is Iraq," then the analysis of the US military still applies that it "is crucial to cut off a potential IS retreat into Syria in order to win in Iraq. The two strategic fields are inextricably linked."

Long way ahead in Syria

O'Hanlon believes there is still no well-developed Syria strategy. "All we are planning is to set up a 5,000-strong Syrian combat unit within 12 months of training." This could at best be only a beginning, given the superior strength of IS and the still strong military power of Syrian President Assad. "And I would say, that the strategy still has a strong tentative character. We still have a long way to go in Syria."

Is Syria Obama's Vietnam?

Despite every assurance from President Obama, Americans fear greatly that the USA will be entangled in a new war. "Will Syria become Obama's Vietnam?" the New York Times asked in a feature article which sought to articulate the fears of many Americans. The newspaper encouraged the President to remain cautious, despite all the painful setbacks and contradictory advice from the military.

Obama's intellectual, but also instinctive, reluctance has drawn criticism from senators like John McCain, but also from Middle East experts, like Jim Phillips, because they claim it robs him of important options.

"The White House still refuses to consider the deployment of American ground troops. They argue that others, like the moderate Syrian rebels, could fill this vacuum in the end," Phillips said. But Kobani has made it more than clear that bombing alone will not prevent the expansion of the Islamic State.

Jimmy Carter condemns Obama's hesitance

Former US President Jimmy Carter has joined the chorus of Obama critics and accused him of enabling IS through his reluctance. Also known for his hesitancy, Carter's condemnation has given more power to the calls in the American media for Obama to re-think his war strategy.

Obama's advisers primarily ascribe the responsibility for the widespread ineffectiveness of the airstrikes to others. O'Hanlon also criticizes the fact that the US has to bear the burden of the fighting alone. "Apparently most of the NATO countries and Arab allies don't want to do much," he said. In this context O'Hanlon also named Germany, which recently announced it wants to take on more responsibility in foreign affairs in the future.

But it is not Germany, but Turkey and its President Erdogan that are currently the focus of criticism. The Obama administration blamed Turkish "inaction" for making it possible for IS to successfully operate in Syria. President Erdogan has neither effectively hindered the flow of foreign fighters across the Turkish border, nor prevented IS oil business on Turkish territory.

"Unfortunately, President Erdogan sees a greater threat in the Syrian Kurds, many of whom are connected to the PKK in Turkey, than the Islamic state," Phillips said.

Obama doomed to failure

Phillips suspects that in the private negotiations between Washington and Ankara over an effective response to Kobani, Erdogan likely wanted too much. Erdogan wants not only a no-fly zone, but also airstrikes against the Assad regime. "The White House does not want to go that far. They would like military cooperation with Turkey, without expanding its own military campaign against Assad's troops," Phillips said. Here the Turkish president emerges as a strong critic of Obama. "If I judge it correctly, Erdogan appears to say that Obama's strategy is doomed to failure."

The response from the White House when it got wind of this is admittedly more disturbing, according to Phillips. "Kobani is much farther from Washington than from Ankara. If Turkey can live with it, then the US can, too."