Time for Obama's hammer

It is a sign of strength: More than 20 nations have dispatched high-ranking military experts to the United States to be advised on a common strategy in the fight against the extremists of the "Islamic State." Even the president of the United States of America is personally coming to the meeting and taking part in the discussion. At the same time, this coalition will be conducting more than 20 airstrikes over the embattled city of Kobani on the Syrian-Turkish border.

But it is also a sign of weakness: It has been months since the global public first heard of IS' successes and of the incomprehensible atrocities that have accompanied these victories, and yet the anti-IS coalition still has no solid plan. The extremists advance further and further despite the airstrikes against them - not only in the Syrian-Turkish border region; but also in Iraq, at the Baghdad airport, for example.

Obama's strategy isn't working

Once again it appears that President Obama's political style quickly reaches its limits when facing a rapidly changing situation that requires decisive action. According to Obama, the fight against IS could take years. This fight should be internationally coordinated, take a patient approach and not be a hasty stumbling into a new war; there should be no "Shock and Awe," no overwhelming campaign by the USA going it alone, and especially no ground war.

But that's exactly the strategy, critics say, isn't working. Calls for "boots on the ground" are getting louder and louder. The fact that Obama committed himself so early and so hastily on the issue of ground troops, that he has so decidedly said that he would not send soldiers, could prove to be a devastating mistake.

People who are willing to get involved in a fight also have to be willing to use any means necessary. That's a show of strength. Otherwise say from the outset: "This is not my fight, we are keeping out of it. Figure out for yourselves how to handle it." That is also a position of strength. The path in-between - launching limited airstrikes instead of using highly effective military ground troops - is not a sign of strength, but a sign of indecision and thus also of weakness.

Will the US be forced to step in?

In the fight against IS, there are currently no soldiers on the ground who could turn the tide of the struggle. No one is well-equipped enough and no one who is trained well enough. But the fight against IS must be addressed now, not weeks and not months from now.

It could well be that the US government will have to reconsider its position sooner than it would like. Should Baghdad's airport become seriously jeopardized, Washington will be forced to act. Otherwise the thousands of Americans in the huge American Embassy complex in Baghdad would be in danger, and that would be an unacceptable disaster.

If IS advances too close to the airport, then there will be US ground troops in action against the IS - and at the forefront. That's one thing experts can agree on. Barring this, it won't happen.

Speaking at the officers' academy at West Point, Obama referred to his own military as "having the best hammer." Then he went on to say that not every problem should be seen as a nail.

Maybe it's time for his advisers to suggest that he take the hammer out of the toolbox and prepare to strike. The president may need it sooner that he wishes.