US Eyes Military Thrust With Islamic State Vulnerable
Jeff Seldin, Voice of America
The entry of U.S. special operations forces into northern Syria to energize the fight against the Islamic State comes as intelligence officials see the terror group as the most vulnerable it has been in some time.
IS has been accustomed to acting as an aggressor, but U.S. intelligence officials say its momentum “has largely been blunted” in Syria, where Kurdish forces are drawing closer to its de facto capital of Raqqa.
“It has suffered significant casualties, lost key leaders and can no longer rely on sweeping victories to boost morale,” a U.S. intelligence official told VOA.
“If forces advancing from the north are successful in defeating ISIL in or around Raqqa, it would mark one of the few instances where ISIL has been defeated from a position of strength,” the official added, using an acronym for the terror group.
Advise and Assist
That advance from the north is exactly the push the U.S. hopes to strengthen with the insertion of fewer than 50 special operations troops backed by increased air power, including A-10 Thunderbolt ground support aircraft and F-15 Eagle strike fighters out of Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
“This is a start,” a senior U.S. defense official said Friday, describing the mission as strictly advise and assist, with an emphasis on operational planning and logistics in order to help Syrian Kurds, Turkmen and Arab groups “take and hold territory.”
For now, the U.S. plan is to keep the special forces back from the front lines, at the headquarters of the various rebel elements taking on Islamic State fighters. As a result, they will not be able to help identify targets and call in precision airstrikes.
Still, their presence could give anti-IS forces, like some of the Kurdish forces, an advantage, including the ability to combine on-the-ground intelligence with electronic surveillance from U.S. drones and satellites.
“Putting those two together can help the Kurdish forces in planning attacks, directing where those attacks will take place and doing other things that will increase their effectiveness,” said Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation, a global policy think tank.
A former member of the U.S. Army special forces, Jenkins said the insertion of special operations forces can also go a long way toward keeping anti-IS groups in the fight.
Human Shields?
“This will enable us to more effectively coordinate that resupply, specifically if we are going to be doing more resupply of Kurdish forces from the air,” he said.
U.S. planners may be eyeing another benefit as well: forcing Turkey to hold off on airstrikes against Kurdish forces in the area.
“They’ve been attacking forces that have been making significant headway against ISIS," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, using another acronym for the Islamic State. “I think it is in U.S. interests to raise the price of going after the YPG, which is fighting against ISIS.”
There is concern, however, that such a strategy could turn U.S. forces in Syria into unwitting human shields.
“Let’s get these guys in Syria, so that way, the Russians know that our guys are on the ground, so they won’t bomb rebels anymore. The Turks know our guys are with the Kurds, so they won’t bomb them anymore,” said Michael Pregent, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and himself a former special operator.
“They’d also be able to say, ‘We didn’t know there were Americans there,’ ” he said.
Pregent, who embedded with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in Mosul, Iraq, from 2005 to 2006, warned that the U.S. plan appeared to be deeply flawed in other ways, starting with a lack of backup.
“What you do not do is telegraph that we are going to be sending 50 special operators into Syria when we have no ground forces in Syria,” he said. “Embedding with an indigenous force only works when you have conventional forces on the ground.”
The numbers, too, point to potential problems, given a standard U.S. military ratio of 10 special operators per 500 allied fighters.
Pregent said 2,500 rebel troops, even with U.S. advisers, are “not near enough to do anything” against an Islamic State force entrenched in one of its key strongholds.
Others also worry that a small contingent of U.S. special operations forces is not enough to change the course of events in Syria or in neighboring Iraq.
“We’ve seen this train-and-advise-and-embed,” said Patrick Skinner, a former intelligence officer now with The Soufan Group, a strategic security intelligence consultancy. “We’ve seen this repeatedly over decades, and it almost has never worked.”
“We’re making tactical decisions and calling it a strategy,” he added.
Modest Expectations
Still, some analysts say the decision to send a small group of special operations forces into Syria shows the U.S. strategy may be on the right track.
“I think the Pentagon has learned and the administration has learned the hard way that it’s really hard to be effective with proxy forces if you’re not actually there with them,” said Jessica Ashooh at the Washington-based Atlantic Council, an international affairs research group.
Still, Ashooh called the potential payoff “good but not enormous.”
One senior U.S. defense official also tried to lower expectations, calling the move an effort “to gauge what's possible.”
And just because the U.S. sees the Islamic State as more vulnerable than in the past, it does not believe that making gains will be easy.
“ISIL has been backed into a corner before and often comes out swinging,” an intelligence official said.
Comments
Bill M---this might interest you--picked this up on social media today...
Video of the Switchblade loitering UAV near Izaa found by SAA https://www.facebook.com/Military.Media.Syria.Central/videos/4815639020… …
Only US forces known to use it.
Izraa is +-40km from Israel. Means UAV was launched inside Syria (10km op. rang ). US SOF in Horran plain ? Little IS presence in Daraa
Bill---comment from someone who has been tracking Syria since 2011....and who has a book coming out on the Syrian military in the next few days.
The 'problem' Oblabla - and most of US decision-makers - have with the FSyA is of following nature:
Right from the start (read: June-July 2011), original leadership of FSyA (in sense of 'franchise', i.e. a movement to which about 100,000 combatants have pledged allegiance, but which never exercised any kind of coherent control over thousands of groups controlling these combatants) stressed it's non-political and non-religious nature. Even more so, it stressed removal of Assadist regime as its priorities No. 1 - 99.
Furthermore, it stressed that only once Assadist regime would be removed, was political (and religious) future of the country to be decided.
Frankly: they said - and still say - 'we fight Assad until he's gone, then we'll sort out the rest'. That's the very essence of what most of those still fighting under the FSyA flag insist upon until today.
Starting with Turkey (in November 2011), all foreign powers that became involved in supporting insurgency have strictly conditioned their aid on political and religious declarations. Turks said 'Moslem Brotherhood only', Saudis said 'Islamists only', Kuwaitis and Qataris said 'Salafists only' etc. (I'm listing only 'major & official protagonists' to keep it simple). Such meddling caused factionalisation of insurgency and creation of various other 'umbrella' organizations (Islamic Front, Ahrar ash-Sham etc.) in competition to the FSyA, in turn weakening it, and making any kind of large-scale coordinated operations impossible.
Now, contrary to Libyans, genuine Syrian insurgent leaders are aware of their diversity. Contrary to Assadists, who stress 'Assad and Alawis above everybody else', they've grown up in a country with population that's very diverse. They're accustomed to such situation, and accustomed to respect other people's religion and political standpoints. That's why none of them ever attempted to claim for himself to represent all of the insurgency. Those who did so (and there were dozens of them) are exclusively Syrians living in exile since 20+ years, without any kind of political basis inside the country, and very little religious basis too (as seen by actually minimal expansion of such groups like JAN, or even the IF and Ahrar).
This stands in stark contrast to Libya, where there was that provisional council in Benghazi that declared itself for 'in charge of insurgency', was then deftly credited by the West and used as 'invitation point' for NATO intervention - only to become a victim of Turkey/Qatar-supported bribery that caused the civil war.
...add to this that the Western media was fast in catching extremist agendas and in over-reporting these, creating a completely wrong picture of the insurgency as an 'uprising of al-Qaida'. Reason for this is that for the media 'moderates' are 'no story' - regardless if more numerous (though disunited too).
Bottom line was: the West concluded it has 'no allies to support' - although this is obvious hogwash, then otherwise Assadists, IRGC and Hezbollah would've won already years ago (simply because such 'extremists' between insurgents like the JAN are too few and do not enjoy widespread support in the population).
In the case of the USA, the problem was (and remains) even bigger. Namely, whenever USA approach such bodies they expect to hear political and religious declarations - such like 'democracy', 'free elections', blahblahblah - and also the other party to make concessions in US' interest.
In the case of Syria, such concession is either a recognition of Israel, or fight against the Daesh (and, preferrably: both).
While majority of so many different Syrian insurgent leaders (even many of those from the JAN) can at least 'accept' most of other ideas, and make plenty of concessions, nobody there is ready to do something like 'recognize Israel', because that would be his own 'suicide'. Namely, there is no way Syrians might make peace with Israel without Israel returning the Golan Heights.
...and in regards of fighting the Daesh: all of insurgents (bar few vetted groups from Dayr az-Zawr and Raqqa areas, longing to avenge what Daesh did to their tribes), understand the situation 100+ times better than the USA, and therefore see that Assadist regime is the core reason for a) wholesale destruction of Syria, b) death of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and c) emergence of the Daesh. Therefore, they insist on continuing to fight down that regime before, first and foremost, before tackling the Daesh.
...while Oblabla is taking the Daesh issue out of context and insisting on fighting it only, because he's comparing Assadist regime with that of Saddam, and thinks that Syria would turn into an anarchy if Assad would fall - while ignoring the fact that Assad has already destroyed most of the country, de-populated more than 70% of it, and enabled extremists to flourish (on his own side too)... i.e. that Assad has already turned the country into an anarchy...
And thus, there are no common interests between the USA and insurgents, and no serious cooperation is possible either, and this means that there is no way anybody there in the DC can openly show his 'enthusiastic support for the FSyA'.
Bill--as always you ask some interesting questions.
IMHO and it is my opinion--the agency and the FSA have always to a degree been thinking in the same direction--ie the overthrow of Assad and then later facing IS.
Robert has actually always said and I agree with him the solution for IS must come out of the Sunni civil society and those Sunni's facing IS on the ground.
There has been as well parallel to the FSA and the agency the Obama efforts and he has been and or was successful in that project--denying the rebels TOWs and MANPADs.
The TOWs started drifting into the FSA in larger numbers in May 2015 with a firing rate of about 40-60 a month from May until mid July then for some strange reason they all but dried up and the FSA used up their stored reserve missiles.
There has been a solid rumor --actually true that Obama did a 360 degree pivot with the Iran Deal and not wanting to agitate the Iranians curtailed the KSA TOW shipments.
THEN as social media picked up the slow down and started questioning the why then the TOW deliveries started slowly again.
With the Russia move into Syria and the extremely heavy bombing of civilians and FSA--not much at all on IS the KSA pulled their Iran Deal card, laid it on the table and Obama had to cave and allow the shipments.
So yes I think the agency and FSA was aligned when it comes to Assad--never thought though the agency, FSA and Obama were ever aligned as Obama really wanted to keep Syria on the back burner until the Iran Deal was totally finished and he was on his way out of office.
The US IS military plan was and still is to narrow--Robert was right it has to be done via the Sunni civil society---and using a combined Kurd, Arab and Sunni mix will not work as the Kurds have their own agenda --just watch their actions when they take over truly Arab villages and towns in Syria.
Is the same BTW in Iraq--the Arab towns and or villages suddenly are named with Kurdish names and swallowed into the Kurdish Regional Administration.
I think the FSA would not mind Assad simply leaving--but right now the "moderate opposition" that Putin will accept is nowhere to be seen as he has basically declared any Syrian who fights against Assad to be a "terrorist".
Personally do not see Syria falling into the same mess as Libya simply because Syria as a civil society is much further along than was the Libyan civil society which is largely build around individual competing tribes and naturally AQ/IS in the mix.
What to watch for in the coming two weeks is how much tighter the relationship between FSA and JaN becomes. Now it could be a tactical move on their part but in general they have become more "moderate" in their statements and demands in exchange for FSA combat weaponry supporting them.
JaN can and does fight far better than IS and is much more militarily organized thus better fighters.
JaN is an interesting Islamist group--if you are aware of the various Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq--one stood out--Ansar al Sunnah--a Kurdish Sunni insurgent group that had a reputation of being the most skilled fighters who would led the ground attacks, could plan operations well and had ties to AQI money--AND they floated between the various Sunni insurgent groups with ease.
JaN has a similar reputation, does float between IS and the other groups and at times is a hardcore opponent when Is tries to take their territory.
BLUF---out of the Russian invasion the various groups are coming together as they realize that is the only way forward against Is as well Assad/Russia/Iran and Hezbollah.ng on.
BTW--the far more interesting question is just how long can the Russian/Iranian IRGC/Iraqi Shia militia and Hezbollah hang on even with the heavy Russian air strikes.
The IRGC, Hezbollah and the Iraqi Shia militias have been heavily battered this go around and were struggling before Russia entered Syria and after this latest offensive has totally failed--not so sure they can hang on much longer before giving ground up in order to defend the Alawite homeland.
Two specific indicators that the Assad forces are tired/worn down, stretched thin and are lacking the will to fight much longer--and they are slowly realizing that IS, JaN and FSA have them basically surrounded and cut off from any further supplies in the Aleppo pocket.
Seems no interest by #Assad-regime & #Russia to regain the Christian towns of Mahin & Al Qaryatayn SE of #Homs from #IslamicState
Latakia Rebels in Ghumam village have now a nice TOW spot overlooking M4 highway http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=35.674450&lon=36.008377&z=14&m=b … …
I will post a comment from the Syrian thread that focuses on your question from someone who has been tracking Syria since 2011.
.
Outlaw-do you think the agency's efforts were successful because the FSAs and our interests were aligned? Likewise the military efforts fell short because they were narrowly focused on IS? Do you think the plan plan is to pressure Assad to come to the table and make a deal, instead of defeating him outright because we don't want another situation like Libya?
This is just how bad the Russian/Iranian IRGC/Hezbollah ground offensive is going........and we are seeing now the moderates and the Islamists joinng in combined efforts.......
Jabhat al-Nusra tanks literally chasing Assad militia fleeing troops southern #Aleppo y'day.
http://sendvid.com/0khln5bm
Assad and Iran militants fleeing their positions in southern #Aleppo villages under heavy Jabhat al-Nusra fire.
BLUF--it is interesting is to watch both JAN and the FSA develop from a rag tag fighting group into a more CAM focused fighting unit.
For the first time in #Syria, islamist rebels accept moderates' attitude and moderates give full arms support to islamists.
Of course, this could and probably will change after the common enemy is gone. But for now, they are more united & thus stronger than ever.
Plus the #FSA, which's TOW missiles paved the way for moderate and extremist islamist rebel forces by destroying most tanks.
Footage
Also a more moderate rebel coalition participates in the battle South of #Aleppo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsrSCJla1Jc …
Footage
The #FSA in the battle for the Southern #Aleppo countryside.
W/less troops though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUri8-GDMrY …
Bill--what is interesting is that up to the Russian entry into Syria--there was an actual stalemate on the battlefield, the FSA had rolled well on the southern front and IS was holding their areas firmly under control.
The FSA had been able to advance using TOWs up to the areas closely bordering Damascus and the Alawite homeland thus the Russian cavalry arriving and the total bombing focused on the FSA.
THEN even the FSA stalemated as the US applied direct pressure to the KSA not to deliver more TOWs.
We often do not talk about the active Obama pressure on slowing down and or stopping further TOWs getting to FSA. This was an open secret in the ME and you can see the number of TOWs being fired spiraling downwards from Jun through to August.
THEN the Russians arrived and the KSA pulled the Iran Deal card and the Obama administration had to pull back and the TOWs flowed.
Right now--through the Russian involvement in their air support for their great Russian/Iranian IRGC/Hezbollah ground offensive which has largely failed the battlefield is again "fluid" and the anti Assad forces as well as IS are on the move again and gaining large areas not previously under they control and decimating the ground offensive--RuAF is not having an effect on the ground fighting.
By adding the Sf ability to call in very direct air strikes they can right now make a difference as well as the training and supply side.
My concern is that they become to identified with the Kurds--who have a very checkered past when they take over Arab areas--ie accusations of war crimes and the complete destruction of Arab villages and or renaming the Arab villages as Kurdish and including them in the Kurdish regional area.
What is interesting is that the FSA has repeatedly stated that once they kick out Assad they will focus on IS and right now in areas they share a front with IS they are actually attacking them.
SF teams should have been down south with the FSA who is fighting more directly IS and Assad if they want to make a profound difference.
Referencing the IS info war efforts--there has been also a marked fall off on that front as well.
IMHO IS is just trying to hold to the areas they control and expand when the opportunity arises and or conduct sudden and unexpected strikes in Syria and Iraq in order to keep Assad and the Iraqi government off guard ie the rocket attacks on Camp Victory and BIAP.
The high water mark of their expansion has actually occurred and that is really only in the Sunni areas--not into the heartland of the Shia both in Iraq and Syria regardless of what their propaganda says.
We can hope a handful of combat advisors, proxies, and air power will result in a repeat performance of Afghanistan in 2001/2, but that is unlikely. The reference to El Salvador is interesting. It could be interpreted as 55 U.S. advisors being the decisive game changer. The reality is they were part of a collective whole that eventually resulted in the defeat of the FMLN. There were always more than 55 advisors, the 55 number was the TDYers, plus other agencies, and a good deal of training offered to their troops in U.S. This effort prevented the FMLN from achieving a military victory, but it wasn't enough to defeat the FMLN alone.
Victory was the result of the confluence of El Salvadorian government reforms, FMLN atrocities that pushed the people away, and the collapse of the USSR, among other things. There won't be a silver bullet solution for Syria either, instead multiple factors will converge, and the outcome will remain uncertain until the end.
I think the SF teams may create opportunities that can be exploited that could prove to be a game changer. More likely it will be a long drawn out affair as each opponent adapts to the other, and we settle into a strategy of erosion, waiting for the decisive political solution to emerge from the chaos.
This recent social media comment out of Syria sums it up........
Congratulations to Assad/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah. After focusing on the Syrian Rebels & leaving ISIS, giving them time to build & organize now ISIS are coming back again with a vengeance. This is all Assad & his allies fault spending all their resources killing civilians & Rebels now ISIS takes advantage & are cutting Assad supply lines. Just goes to show how short sighted & stupid Assad & his allies are.
But hey if the moronic Assad regime was not so shortsighted they would have seen how killing protestors in 2011 would get them to what we see today...
After these Russian actions inside Syria--not sure exactly why the US would support Russia...............
Assad's barrel bomb terror in Jasim (Daraa province) today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hYuHh1VIEI …
Air strikes on Douma on October 31, one day after the Market Massacre with 71 deaths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fPvxbOpJWI …
Four air strikes were used to destroy the medical facility.
Seems Putin (like Assad) is doing everything to bomb into uninhabitable.
NOTE: BTW the same exact tactic was and still is being used by Russian troops and her mercenaries inside the Ukraine AND previously Grozny.
Russian jets destroyed the «National Pharmaceutical» plant in Aleppo's Khan al-Asal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe1z_uJ8KWQ …
Footage
Different from Putin & Assad, the FSA keeps fighting ISIS (N of Aleppo).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trHA_jB5BI4 …
Having been "defeated" by Russia's airstrikes, ISIS has just captured the strategic town of Mahin in Homs from the Syria Army.
Again the proverbial question--DID not Putin state to the entire world and stated that publicly--he was going into Syria to fight "terrorism" and he tied the word "terrorism" to the term Islamic State.
BUT wait did not Putin then shift a few days later publicly the term "terrorism" to mean and again using Putin's own words "to mean anyone holding an AK47 and fighting against the "legal" Syrian government"--comment made in an interview prior to going to the UNGA meeting.
AND why has Putin actually not attacked directly the Islamic State?--from Russian military actions Putin is actually actively supporting the Islamic State together with the Assad military.
The Commenter here states "we should work together"?
THEN there is this statement from the Russian MoD this week --which if the figures are anywhere close to being accurate which they are not--THEN why is the Islamic state advancing on all fronts--if Putin has declared them his goal to eliminate?
Quite some numbers. Might also point out Kartapolov is the man who held the Russian MoD MH17 briefings...
pic.twitter.com/mdyOVZcXvP
Минобороны России @mod_russia ·
Kartapolov: This month Russian air group performed 1391 combat sorties engaging 1623 terrorists' objects
Kartapolov Russian aircraft destroyed
249 command and communication centres;
51 terrorist training camps;
35 IED plants and workshops
Kartapolov Russian aircraft destroyed
131 ammo depots;
371 strong points & fortified positions;
786 field camps and different bases
THEN WHY is the Russian/Iranian IRGC/Hezbollah ground offensive totally and completely failing???????
Why is even the question of cooperation even being discussed when based on the Russian MoD statement--Russia is singularly winning the "war on terrorism"??
Appears from the Russian MoD they do not need US cooperation--remember also it was again Putin and his FM who openly and publicly questioned the effectiveness of the US actions against the Islamic State.
Cannot have it both ways.......
Extremely interesting if true........
Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir: Iran & Russia agreed to set a date for departure of Assad & withdrawal of foreign forces from Syria
So if true-then has been this latest total failed Russian/Iranian/Hezbollah ground offensive contributed to this as well as the massive negative press on the killing of civilians.........
Dayuhan--then explain what he has and or has not achieved in the Ukraine--there is now Nov 2015 no clear EU pushback any more--they actually are forcing together with the US to have the Ukraine conduct a unilateral appeasement cave in and the EU is pushing to remove the sanctions--win or loss for Putin?
Oh--- was it not the German Deputy Chancellor who flew to Putin this week and discussed the new pipeline that will effectively cut the Ukraine out of gas transmission to the EU.
In Syria who is on the ground and dictating to met in Vienna--the last time I checked it was Russia. AND the US--by Putin's move has been forced to give up about anything they stated about Assad in the last three years.
Even the US supported group that the US constantly denied knowing anything about is being bombed by Russia instead of the IS and what does the US say and or do---BTW all those US TOWS--brought, paid for and delivered by KSA/Qatar NOT Obama.
Both the Russian Ukrainian and now Syrian moves have not cost him anything in the UNSC--not even a whimper when Russia is committing bombing genocide against civilians as has Assad for over 4.5 years.
NATO--let's see they cannot even agree to station troops on their eastern flank and oh---the Russians made a massive military move into Syria and NATO did not even pick it up? The defense spending requirement from Wales 2015 NATO meeting --that magical 2% is nowhere close to being met by all NATO members.
Let's see--NATO exercises as a show of unity and solidarity--wait Russia counter exercises were three times larger and oh that nuclear thing--this week Russia exercised DURING the Vienna meeting their complete nuclear triad--air launched, ground launched and sea launched.
Moldavia--was going pro West and NATO--now stymied by pro Russian groups inside the country.
Let's not forget Serbia and Montenegro where anti NATO/EU protests flared up this week along the way.
I could go on forever if you like--and these are just the activities of the last six months.
So again the question is---who on first base heading to third base and more importantly who is not even in the game.
So does the "so called cooperation" with Russia stop it from killing civilians and dropping bombs on hospitals???
A nation state that supports a genocidal dictator is just as guilty of
"war crimes against humanity" as the dictator is and right now with the massive killing of large numbers of civilians in the last five days and the chemical attack today on Syrian civilians Russia ie Putin is a war criminal.
Just asking.....
Putin has three core geo political goals since 2008----
1. discredit and damage NATO
2. discredit and damage the EU
3. disconnect the US completely from Europe and the ME
Why because Putin wants to destroy the influence of the so called US neo liberal economic system and values........
For those that do not believe that-- I will be more than happy to provide direct publicly made quotes from both Putin and the Russian FM since 2008.
Remember Putin wants through his geo political goals two things--a new Yalta and an economic/political zone existing from Portugal to the Russian Far east---naturally under Russian hegemony. Many public quotes from both Putin and his FM support this.
This comment surprises me for a number of reasons as it is the standard Russian troll response seen countless times in social media these days.
Putin needs an exit strategy in order to save face out of Syria--killing civilians to include women and children smacks of Grozny-- not an exit strategy.........
In some aspects Obamaa was totally correct in 2014--"we will judge Putin by is actions not his words"--AND Putin has not fulfilled a single point of the Minsk 2 agreement in the Ukraine so why trust him on anything he says about Syria as his "actions are right now simply killing civilians".
Oh......wait did not Putin publicly state he moved into Syria to destroy Islamic State.......????
Since when are women and children "terrorists"---ie the Islamic State??
The Russian intervention in Syria is on account of the geostrategic gains that it sees. It is banking on its initiative in bringing some order to the chaos in Syria, gain some re-recognition as a great power and tide over the negative effect of its Ukraine policy. To an outside observer it appears that it has achieved all objectives. It has gained the advantage that the player who makes the first bold move gains. Speaking in the UN General Assembly on 28 Sep 2015 President Putin said that the West is making an enormous mistake by not cooperating with Assad to stop the ISIS. The world would like to see the fundamentalism epitomized by ISIS to be reined in and in that context Putin’s words ring true.
The US action to belatedly move a handful of Special Forces and additional firepower may have an effect on the conflict in the manner that the US desires. However the notion of being in command of the situation that Russia has projected has won it a psychological edge. To the world the Russian intervention in fact offers the only ray of hope to reigning in the ISIS. It would have earned the US greater goodwill in case in the very convulted situation the USA had in some manner been able to be on the same side of the wall as Russia. It would have enabled it to pull its chestnuts from the fire without risking loss of face and committing ground troops, an aversion (at this point of time), which is very evident to the world. Cooperation with Russia even if implied only would have been a better strategy for the US in Syria.