'US strategy has failed'

DW: Unable to hold back the advances of the "Islamic State," ("IS") US President Barack Obama is facing increasing pressure to broaden the US commitment in the Middle East. Does his strategy of limited engagement have any hope of succeeding?

David Ignatius: As it stands now, one has to say that the strategy has failed. "IS" militants are on the rise in Iraq and Syria. More force is necessary. The president has received recommendations to increase the firepower in Iraq - with more Apache helicopters and fighter jets. But as difficult as the situation is in Iraq, the bigger problem is Syria. There are no ground forces there that could defeat the "IS." Two weeks ago, I was in Syria with the opposition. This is a chaotic group, not in a position to win this war. The United States and its allies are in a difficult situation. There are no powerful allies on the ground. And we don't want to send our own troops there.

Should President Obama decide on military escalation, would this not make American military commitment irreversible in the long run?

Obama's biggest fear is running into a trap. That he stumbles into the same fatal operation as in 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq and increasingly deployed troops there, with the result being that the chaos continued to grow. This is what Obama fears. Basically, with combat missions that begin in a limited manner, there's always the pressure to deploy more soldiers. We know that from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. It's downright painful to watch President Obama trying to turn a new page in American history and stop these kinds of interventions, only to be forced, by the cruel logic of the situation, to do just the opposite of what he really wanted.

Do you think America's allies should do more? What exactly do you expect from Germany?

Europe is first and foremost threatened by the rise of the "Islamic State." Thousands of Europeans are making their way to the camps in Syria, where they are learning to hit targets in Europe. This is one of the reasons why the international coalition was so quick to come together. Germany should be telling those countries that are directly affected, such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, exactly the same as the US: This threat concerns you! We will help you wherever we can, but you have to fight this battle yourself.

I don't know whether Germany should participate in the airstrikes. But I know from my own experience in Afghanistan that the German special units are among the best. They are very well trained, technically well-equipped and they have a high sensitivity to their cultural environment. When we talk about which country should train the Syrian opposition or the Sunni militias, Germany should be there.

Do you think that Obama's goal, to weaken the " Islamic State" terrorist militia and in the end destroy it, is still realistic?

The part of his promise which deals with weakening and forcing them back is realistic. The United States can do a lot, even limited to just airstrikes. Together with the air forces of our allies, we could break down or at least slow "IS" advances. But when it comes to its ultimate destruction, President Obama was quite clear that this could take many years. The Arab world needs to modernize. From our European history, we know that it took hundreds of years to get into the modern age. It was a long and violent path. It could take decades here.

David Ignatius writes for The Washington Post, and is one of the most distinguished journalists in the US. Currently, his focus is the situation in the Middle East.