Kobane Reveals Flaws In America's Anti-IS Strategy

Washington D.C. - Nearly two months have passed since President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS), an extremist Sunni group controlling major cities in Iraq and Syria.

The attacks, which are now conducted by a coalition of nations including some Arab countries, have partly been successful. They have, for example, halted the advance of the militants on Iraqi Kurdistan.

But the group has recently made headways elsewhere including towards the predominantly Kurdish city of Kobane, which has been besieged by IS for weeks and more than 150,000 of its residents fled for shelter in Turkey.

The United States maintains that no American ground troops will be sent for Middle East wars, yet the US president defends his strategy, which is mostly about airstrikes, as comprehensive one that will “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamist group.

But can we be sure about that? Are airstrikes going to defeat those vicious militants who now number in 20-30 thousand people, posses heavy weapons, and control lucrative oil fields? More importantly, they seem to have won the hearts and minds of many discontented Sunni Arabs. 

To examine this subject, Rudaw talks to: 

- Ambassador David Mack, who is the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.

-  Peter Juul is a Policy Analyst at American Progress, where he specializes in the Middle East, military affairs, and U.S. national security policy.   

- Benjamin H. Friedman, a research fellow with the CATO Institute specializing in defense and homeland security studies.