The US forced to deal with Russia for Syria

The American military and strategic failure in Syria and political environment in Iraq, would have facilitated the rise of extremist Islamic groups, who then went to establish the Islamic state. This analysis, certainly an acceptable, comes from US experts, including senior staff officers of Washington, who, by now, noted that military actions conducted exclusively from the sky are not enough without the land, made with troops of earth. The White House, aware of this need has focused, for the country and the training of training Syrian rebels moderates to create ground units can provide the necessary support to the bombing run from the sky and also from the sea, but there was by strategists of the Pentagon a misjudgment to excess, thinking can turn into soldiers efficient and capable members of the secular Syrian formations. The problem is that the human material to work proved to be too small in number and low quality military, a basis on which even the American training was insufficient for the goal. Currently it is estimated that only a few hundred Syrians are subject to US military training, while at the beginning of Obama's plan had to be more than 5,400 auditors. On the ground remain committed Kurds, who have some resentment towards the US because of the bombing that Turkey carries on their workstations, the soldiers of Assad, who are less and less, committed against the caliphate, but having an attitude is not always uniform towards the Kurds, Hezbollah, considered terrorists by the Americans and the Iranian combatants, who assist the regular Syrian military and also have an adversarial relationship, although less pronounced, with Kurdish militias. In this varied landscape fighters of democratic formations, which are fighting against both Assad and against the Islamic state, they have a very contained. For the US the main objective remains the defeat of the caliphate, an organization considered to be potentially capable of exponential growth and, above all, capable of exporting terrorism, once that could be consolidated in the territories it occupies and that is trying to occupy. Obama has always said that war in the Middle East there is no room for a new direct intervention on the ground by US soldiers and this interpretation seems shared by almost all of the American people, as well as from both sides agriculture policies, which on the eve the presidential election, are not intended to rule in favor of a new commitment comparable to that undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this scenario it has matured long ago the theory of the lesser evil, identified Assad, also diplomatic rapprochement with Washington with its major ally: Iran. Address this issue is a delicate matter for the White House, it can not say too much officially about a politician as controversial and bloody, but that, although militarily greatly reduced, may be the only means available to eradicate the forces of the Islamic State. In addition, in support of Assad, it came to the village even Russia, with significant military aid. At the beginning of operations in Moscow, the West has compared the intervention to the one conducted in Crimea in eastern Ukraine, but here the conditions are very different. If it is true that Russia has a major objective, preserving the only naval base in the Mediterranean, it is also true that the political support to Damascus has never ceased and the Russian interests there is a deep connection with concerns Americans regarding terrorism. It should be remembered many actual foreign Islamic state come from the Russian regions of the Caucasus and stand out to be among the most highly ideologized and politicized members, characterized by a vision that aims to export Islamic extremism in their areas of origin. Seen in this perspective, Russia would face far more immediate danger, the phenomenon of domestic terrorism, which the United States itself. The two super powers, currently divided again as in the Cold War years, may develop feelings so far opposed such to favor a diplomatic approach can defeat the caliphate. If that were to occur in a state of Washington it would be weaker than in Moscow, just because of the closeness between Assad's Syria and Russia. However, an alliance between the US, Russia and Iran could have reasons relatively reasonable militia of the caliphate. Washington for the price to pay is two-fold: on the one hand to certify the presence of Assad despite the brutality carried out on his own people, the other side to manage a relationship that would become more and more complicated, because of the reason above, with Sunni allies, especially Saudi Arabia and Turkey, who thought to use the opportunity of the Syrian civil war to remove Assad from the political scene. A second difficulty the Americans will have to cope with in a diplomatic way, reminding the allies that they were one of the causes of the formation of the Islamic state issue, while, always diplomatically, must be resolved the issue that may be presented with a stay in power Assad, trying to facilitate a transition of power, which preserves the guarantees for Tehran and Moscow.