News Analysis: Little change for U.S. strategy to fight IS

U.S. President Barack Obama's request for Congress to authorize military force against the Islamic State (IS) is unlikely to have any profound impact on the U.S. efforts to defeat the terror group, experts have said.

"(Obama) seems likely to escalate U.S. involvement modestly with this authorization, probably wishing to capitalize on the surge of Jordanian-related regional pushback against the IS," said Wayne White, former deputy director of U.S. State Department's Middle East Intelligence Office.

While the plan opens the door for the deployment of U.S. ground troops in a limited fashion, it restricts their use in a bid to prevent another long and drawn-out U.S. war such as that in Iraq or the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, which began more than a decade ago.

Indeed, experts say Obama is concerned about his legacy as the president who ended the U.S. war in Iraq, and he does not want to back paddle on promises made early in his presidency.

A number of experts, intelligence officials, military officers and hawks in Congress have for months argued that boots on the ground are the only way to stop the deadly Islamist radicals, as bombing simply causes them to scatter, and the plan will likely kick off a battle between those in favor of more U.S. intervention and lawmakers wary of too much U.S. involvement on the ground.

"The president has been under pressure from Democrats concerned about escalation, Republicans seeking far greater military action, as well as military voices urging more military engagement," noted White.

"An attempt to address, in part, the concerns of all pleases few in the end, so congressional conflict over this authorization -- especially with the opposition party in possession of both houses of Congress -- will be prolonged," he said.

The language of the plan is vague, but upcoming congressional hearings will provide the White House with an opportunity to explain how the plan will defeat the IS.

Before they commit to the plan or any version of it, lawmakers will want to know specifics about the main objective, how to measure goals and the role of regional forces.

Observers also say it is important to cut off the terrorists' funding.

"If the U.S. can really organize an international coalition that targets IS funding and its ability to sell oil, there is an opportunity to economically destroy them and cripple their ability to operate. Like with other terror groups worldwide, money is the oxygen that supports IS vitality," Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of Shurat HaDin/Israel Law Center near Tel Aviv, Israel told Xinhua.

She added that IS funds come from four main sources: oil sales, local extortion, hostage taking and the sale of antiquities.

In recent weeks, the IS' ability to sell oil has been greatly reduced, but now the extremists are putting greater efforts into ransoming foreign hostages and selling antiquities, she said.

In addition, there are banks in some Middle Eastern countries that are still moving funds for the IS' front organizations, she said.

Obama's plan comes after critics' accusations that the administration has no strategy to defeat the militants and instead aims simply to contain them.

Those shots come not only from Republicans and right leaning pundits, but also from some in Obama's own party and even former administration members amid a surge in Islamist radicalism worldwide. Endi