Iraqi security

The announcement to send an additional 275 marines and army soldiers to protect the US embassy in Iraq does not come as a surprise. With the situation in the country becoming increasingly more volatile and fighters of the radical Sunni group ISIS moving closer toward Baghdad, Washington is not taking any chances.

According to the State Department, a large number of personnel has been evacuated from its Baghdad embassy and relocated within Iraq. The additional contingent of troops includes specially trained marines, which will be deployed to secure one of the largest and most expensive embassies ever built by the US. It opened it 2009.

Specter of Benghazi

The reinforcement of the compound and the personnel shift is a clear signal that the Obama administration is trying to do everything it can to prevent an attack on its embassy by ISIS fighters or other militants. With good reason - as the situation in Iraq is becoming increasingly volatile, and the specter of Benghazi is still very vivid in most Americans' minds.

Two years ago, Islamist militants attacked the US mission in the Libyan city of Benghazi, killing the American ambassador and a Foreign Service officer (bombed consulate pictured above). The Obama administration, particularly then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, continue to reel from the Benghazi attack. Republicans in the House of Representatives have launched an investigation into the incident, and accuse the Obama administration of failing to provide adequate security to the US mission.

"Obama's goal is to reassure Americans at home that he will not allow another thing to happen like in Benghazi," said Peter Wijninga, a military analyst at The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies in the Netherlands. "He cannot afford another Benghazi. That's why he's sending these additional marines in, to make sure that no one lifts so much as a finger to the US embassy in Baghdad."

Crister S. Garrett, a US expert at the University of Leipzig, thinks that some of the troops may play a double role in Iraq. "They already have a very robust security force, so I think this is the political cover for sending in special advisors," Garret told DW. These advisors "will be probably working informally with Iraqi officers to prepare the defenses around Baghdad, to maybe do counterinsurgency and to maybe try to disrupt ISIS in different formats like supply routes."

Bigger question

While Washington has said it is mulling deploying a limited number of special operation forces to assist the Iraqi military, no official decision on this has been announced.

In any case, Obama must soon make a more momentous decision than how to fortify the US embassy and whether or not to send some special advisors to Iraq. With ISIS steadily advancing toward Baghdad and the Iraqi army unable to counter it, the clock is ticking for an outside intervention by US airpower. On the other hand, Obama has made it clear that he is not willing to use military force in Iraq without an underlying political plan to stabilize the country.

"How do we not allow ISIS to gain the upper hand, but at the same time keep up the pressure on the Maliki government to reform and to allow for more Sunni and Kurd participation in the national government?" said Garrett. "That's the dilemma that the United States faces right now."

'Easy' solution

Obama's principle - that this conflict can't be solved by US military power alone - is correct, the experts argue. The problem is determining how hard to push the al-Maliki government to agree, and when it's time to step in to prevent further carnage.

"That it may take too long to decide whether to intervene is always a problem for Western democracies - even in the US," Wijninga noted.

Compared to that political conundrum, the military question is relatively easy: The US could set up a limited air campaign with military forces already deployed in the region on very short notice.