A recent announcement by President Barack Obama to send up to 250 additional US soldiers to Syria has yet again countered his efforts to reduce his country’s military footprint in the Middle East. The dramatic overturn in his foreign policy came only a day after he had himself ruled out sending ground troops against the ISIS, proclaiming to help achieve peace in Syria by “slowly shrink(ing) the environment in which (IS) operate(s).” This initiative is being described as an attempt to bolster the local forces combatting the IS militants, with the expertise and assistance of US armed personnel. Obama’s administration has been facing heavy criticism for conducting misdirected and passive exercises to counter the Syrian crisis. For the past five years, the US has not responded to the atrocities being carried out by the Assad regime in any manner except delivering surreptitious rhetoric. It is to Syria’s misfortune that neither the international community nor its own administration appears to be interested in addressing its plight. The paramilitary forces in the country only target those standing in opposition to the dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad, not the IS fighters who are striving to establish Syria as their basecamp. Even though Russian leadership seems determined to intervene in the ongoing conflict, it aims to do so only by fortifying an alliance with Assad’s forces. The US, on the other hand, appears to be absorbed in a dilemma of its own security interests. Its decade-old rivalry with Russia has forced the Obama regime to react to Vladimir Putin’s aggressive measures in Syria by instituting its own local partnerships with Kurdish tribes among other rebel groups. However, these policies have also created a new set of political divisions between the Republican and Democrat legislators in the US Congress. The ongoing presidential debates in the country are a solid indicator of the growing resentment of US political elite towards foreign crises. Donald Trump — notoriously known for his preposterous statements — is not alone in his apprehension of the US footprint on Syrian lands. Even moderate voices like Ted Cruz have gone to the extent of branding Syria and Iran as significant “state sponsors of IS.” In the wake of such widespread and blatant opposition to any Syrian relief initiative, Obama administration should still be applauded for at least trying to direct the ailing land towards peace. It was only because of the influence of John Kerry, US Secretary of State, and UN mediators that representatives from both Assad’s regime as well as the opposition groups agreed to attend peace talks in Geneva this year. Yet again, besides touting the success of his peacekeeping strategies, Obama has not achieved much in Syria. In lieu of striving for the welfare of the millions of Syrians suffering from pangs of hunger under the atrocious Assad’s regime, he has only acted out against the stronghold of the jihadist rebels. An active pursuit against both IS commanders as well as the undemocratic Assad’s regime is highly crucial if Washington aspired to undermine the growing might of migration crisis. In addition to asking the European countries to step up their ground contribution against the IS, President Obama should also have urged the developed world to facilitate humanitarian access to Syrians in desperate need. In their drive to defeat extremism, the US among other interveners appears to have forgotten the throes of starvation and suffering of the scores of innocent Syrians as a direct consequence of its sieges and bombings. *