News Analysis: Impact of more U.S. special forces deployment to fight IS may be limited

With U.S. President Barack Obama's announcement Monday to send additional special operations forces to Syria to fight Islamic State (IS), the impact could be limited as the situation in the region remains complex, U.S. experts said.

On Monday, President Obama announced that he would deploy 250 additional special operations forces to help Kurdish and Iraqi forces to fight IS. Experts said this will help somewhat, but may not be a silver bullet to decisively beat the extremists.

The radical Islamist group has for more than a year been on the march in Syria and Iraq, and has overtaken vast swaths of territory, setting up its own government, establishing draconian laws, and beheading and crucifying dissidents.

Fearing that IS will use the turf as a base from which to launch strikes against the U.S. like the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks by al-Qaida, the U.S. is backing Kurdish and Iraqi forces in fighting IS, including continuing a bombing campaign against the group.

"This latest U.S. deployment will have some impact, but it may be limited, because the numbers remain relatively small," Wayne White, former deputy director of the State Department's Middle East Intelligence Office, told Xinhua.

"All depends on the moderate rebel and, even more so, on the Kurdish YPG fighters who will be engaged in the actual combat," he said, referring to the acronym whose translation means People's Protection Units. "That said, the YPG has been the most effective combat force working with the U.S.-led coalition in Syria, or Iraq. Its primary problem is very limited heavy weapons and numbers of combatants far less than those fielded by pro-regime forces."

White added that the U.S. has now promised air drops of arms and other munitions, but with Turkey being hostile to the YPG, such aid could be a lot less than what the YPG needs.

Critics contend that Obama is not doing all he can to thwart the IS threat, maintaining that U.S. forces face restrictions based on cumbersome rules of engagement that blunt their ability to fight. They also argue that the Obama administration is conducting far fewer bombings against IS compared with previous U.S. military operations.

But White said the administration is doing just about all it can without putting boots on the ground.

"The more U.S. personnel are placed close to the front lines, the greater the risk of one or more U.S. soldiers being killed, seriously wounded, or even captured," he said.

He noted that the U.S. soldier killed earlier this year in Iraq died mainly because Iraqi forces he was operating with melted away around him, leaving him virtually alone to face IS fighters.

"In Iraq in particular, where the bulk of the army and Kurdish Peshmerga are less reliable than the YPG, the risk to U.S. personnel seems highest," he said.

The Obama administration wants to limit its involvement in Iraq, after the president ran on a platform of ending the U.S. war in Iraq, and thus it is limiting the amount of troops it sends.

But Colin P. Clarke, RAND Corporation's associate political scientist, told Xinhua he believes the Obama administration is doing everything it can to beat IS in Syria and Iraq.

"We need to remember, however, that even if IS is defeated as a physical entity, which will take years to accomplish, we need to make progress in ameliorating some of the structural factors that led to the rise of IS in the first place. Two obvious examples are the civil war in Syria and the marginalization of Sunni Arabs by the government in Baghdad," said Clarke, who believes the U.S. needs to consider other factors to win the fight.

"We've got to consider all possible options in this fight and attack the group at its core, but also work to weaken its presence online, deplete its financial resources and disrupt its ability to recruit and train new members," Clarke said. Endit