海角大神

The Paris attacks have triggered a fresh round of calls for sending American ground troops into Syria to root out a terrorist organization that has now demonstrated with deadly clarity that it intends to strike targets around the world, including in the West.

But while the debate over deploying large numbers of US troops is all but certain to intensify, the likelihood of a switch in US strategies any time soon to send聽in American soldiers to wage a ground war on the self-proclaimed Islamic State appears much less likely.

Perhaps most significantly, President Obama remains firmly opposed to the idea, as he stated again Monday at a press conference in Turkey. Sending a large number of troops to Syria would be a 鈥渕istake,鈥� Mr. Obama said, because once again it would be the US trying to tackle a problem that ultimately can only be solved by local populations.

Saying he had 鈥渘o doubt鈥� that the 鈥渇inest military in the world鈥� could 鈥渕arch into Mosul or Raqqa or Ramadi and temporarily clear out ISIL,鈥� Obama said it聽 would leave the US with another Iraq-like occupation.

鈥淲e would see a repetition of what we鈥檝e seen before,鈥� he said, 鈥渨hich is, if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes 鈥� they resurface 鈥� unless we鈥檙e prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries.鈥� 聽聽

But regional and military experts remain deeply divided over the idea of 鈥渂oots on the ground鈥� in Syria 鈥� and whether such a move would quickly dispense with a looming national security threat to the US and its allies, or result in yet another quagmire on the order of Afghanistan or Iraq.

鈥淪uch an invasion will deepen the extremist narrative of clash of civilizations between the West and Muslims, will insert our militaries in a deep, nasty, and unwinnable civil war, and the invading force will eventually be responsible for reconstructing a semblance of order and governance in a chaotic region infected with sectarian divisions,鈥� says David Schanzer, associate professor in Duke University鈥檚 School of Public Policy and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security in Durham, N.C.

As 鈥渦nsatisfying鈥� as the US approach may be 鈥� a strategy that Obama defined last week as 鈥渃ontainment鈥� of the Islamic State (IS), also known as ISIS or ISIL 鈥� Dr. Schanzer says that 鈥渢he basic contours of the current strategy are right.鈥�

Not so, say others, who insist that only with boots on the ground can the US 鈥渄estroy鈥� IS, which is the president鈥檚 stated goal.

鈥淭he president says his goal is to 鈥榙egrade and destroy鈥� ISIS, but you鈥檙e not going to do that with some additional air strikes,鈥� says James Jeffrey, who was US ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to '12 and who has emerged as one of the most forceful advocates of sending in US ground troops to lead the fight against the Islamic State. 鈥淵ou might have a few successes tactically,鈥� he adds, 鈥渂ut you aren鈥檛 going to defeat ISIS that way.鈥�

Obama said his strategy is yielding results, as local fighters in Syria and Iraq take back terrain until recently held by IS. Secretary of State John Kerry, who made a surprise stop in Paris Monday evening to show American solidarity with France, said earlier that the US was 鈥渙n the way鈥� to defeating IS.

But whatever slow advances are being made against IS are not stopping the terrorist group from advancing its cause 鈥� and reach 鈥� in ways that the US cannot afford to allow to proceed, former Ambassador Jeffrey says.

鈥淚n the last month or so, we鈥檝e seen four major attacks outside of the Syria-Iraq conflict area,鈥� says Jeffrey, pointing to the Ankara bombings in October, the downing of a Russian airline over Egypt, the Beirut bombings, and Paris. 鈥淪o the president has a strategy that hasn鈥檛 worked for 18 months, and it鈥檚 getting worse.鈥� 聽

Some military experts are promoting something of a middle ground, saying the US must, on the one hand, send in more special forces than the 50 Obama deployed to Syria last month to work alongside Kurdish and other opposition fighters 鈥� while keeping out ground forces that would feed the 鈥淲estern invasion鈥� narrative and potentially have a hard time getting back out.

鈥淵es, we need more special forces, mostly for training on location within Syria to get the opposition forces strong enough to change the battlefield dynamics. But not main combat formations,鈥� says Michael O鈥橦anlon, national security and defense policy analyst at the Brookings Institution in Washington. 鈥淗undreds or maybe a couple thousand troops,鈥� he adds, 鈥渘ot tens of thousands.鈥�

But advocates of sending in ground troops say a 鈥渜uagmire鈥� would not be inevitable.

鈥淸Obama] is absolutely right to want to avoid an occupation, but that鈥檚 not what we鈥檙e talking about here,鈥� says Jeffrey, now a visiting scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 鈥淥nce you defeat these guys as a state and a conventional army, then you pull back and focus on containing what鈥檚 left.鈥�

And Jeffrey says there鈥檚 a model for how the US could then keep the IS remnants 鈥渃ontained,鈥� and that鈥檚 Afghanistan.

鈥淲e have 10,000 troops there at reasonable cost and in relative security helping the Afghans against the Taliban, and we can keep the 10,000 in there聽 basically forever,鈥� he says.

Even before Obama gave his press conference Monday, White House advisers were busy assuring reporters that any talk of 鈥渟tepped up鈥� US action in the wake of the Paris bombings would not extend to deployment of US ground troops.

That may remain true in the short term, Jeffrey says, but he adds that his diplomatic experience taught him something: 鈥淧residents can change.鈥�

To that he adds that, without a dramatic shift in strategy, 鈥淸Obama] is going to be handing this problem off to his successor.鈥�