Fresh US military intervention in Iraq: Where it leads to?

In a stark reversal of his fundamental foreign policy, United States President Barack Obama has involved afresh his country militarily in Iraq from where he had withdrawn American troops three years ago. Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, had sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq for what was dubbed 'war on terror'.
Following a major change in the White House, Bush's successor from the Democratic Party, Barack Obama, slowly and painstakingly pulled out forces from Iraq in 2011. The same is to happen in the case of Afghanistan by the end of the current year.
But, rather paradoxically, the Obama administration has involved the US again militarily in Iraq - albeit now confined only to air strikes on Islamist rebels making an onslaught on the incumbent Iraqi government.
It will, however, not be surprising if the President authorises ground troops in the future, depending on the success of the "Sunni" fighters known as 'Jihadists', who have occupied vast swathes in northern Iraq and also Syria, and threatened their advance towards Iraqi autonomous region of "Kurdistan".
It is this advance by the Jihadists that prompted the United States to launch air attacks on the Sunni insurgents, who earlier declared the establishment of a caliphate straddling the Iraqi and Syrian territories they control. However, Obama said that he would not send troops to Iraq and 'drag' the US again in war over there.
Earlier, the US sent military advisers to help the Nur-al-Maliki government in Baghdad following the occupation of key city Mosul and some other areas in northern Iraq by the rebels in a lightning offensive that took many by surprise. They are also involved in the civil war in neighbouring Syria, where they are fighting both the forces of President Bashar al-Assad and the factions opposed to his regime.
The American-backed Baghdad government is also being supported and assisted by Iran as both the governments are heavily Shia-influenced. The US has found a rare commonality in this matter with Iran as the two nations are opposed to the Sunni fighters tooth and nail.
In an interesting turn of events in the international politics of the day, Tehran and Washington - two enemies--are now together in their policies in the latest developments in Iraq, where both have high stakes.
 President Obama's order for the first air strikes in Iraq since the pullout of the American troops in 2011 came after the "Islamic State" - the Sunni fighters are known of late - made massive gains on the ground by seizing key areas near "Kurdistan", forcing a mass exodus of religious minorities.
The Christians and the 'Yazidis', a 4000-year-old faith, are reportedly worst victims of the situation. The US said that it was acting to prevent genocide against the religious minorities and also protect the US interests in "Kurdistan".
President Obama, who was an outspoken critic of the US military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, said the latest American air attacks in Iraq would remain only within this parameter as he would not send troops to that country. Nevertheless, analysts are not fully ruling out such a possibility if the situation really demands US ground troops there.
Earlier, when the Jihadists made spectacular successes in their offensive nearly two months ago, a senior US military commander said that it would be difficult to dislodge them from the occupied areas without massive foreign military support. As the air attacks are targeting the rebels, it remains to be seen if the Americans succeed in decimating them.
The Baghdad and autonomous Kurdistan governments have welcomed the US air intervention while Washington's key Western allies like Britain and France have supported the American actions. But the two European countries now stopped short of their military involvement even though both had taken part in the previous US-led military offensive against the Saddam Hussain regime in 2003.
Obama's decision for air attacks in Iraq raises question about the rationale of fundamentals of his foreign policy--that he would not commit the US militarily unless the situation becomes truly unavoidable. He has not involved the US militarily in the Syria conflict where more than 170,000 people have been killed in last more than three years. He rather resisted attacking Syria by air last year despite alleged use of chemical weapons by the Damascus regime.
As the Jihadist offensive has been continuing for last several weeks, he is now talking about protecting the religious minorities. Of course, the IS's killing of many people, regardless of their religious and other identities, cannot be condoned. But the question is where the situation will finally lead to?
The Maliki and Kurdistan governments expect a quick reversal of the situation in ground because of the American involvement in the form of intensive air attacks. This is possible to some extent since the IS fighters have no air power and depend only on the ground actions. But if the cherished expectations of crushing the Jihadists fail, then what can be the scenario? Would Iraq sink once again in the complex quagmire?
Already, the once-formidable country is virtually divided in three areas - the Shia-dominated zone, the Sunni- controlled territories and the autonomous Kurdistan region, which has expressed its desire to become independent.
Obama appears to have undertaken a gamble that shows contradictions in his policies, and it remains to be seen how things develop in the volatile region.
[email protected]