The role of the United States in ISIL related matters is always complicated. Some analysts believe that it is the United States that has created ISIL. Many of the weapons that the United States provided to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) finally resulted in the hands of ISIL. Despite solid evidence, it is wrong to think that the United States intentionally created ISIL. Why would one of the most seriously affected victims support terrorism? And the argument for the link between U.S. support for militants fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the rise of Al Qaeda and ISIL is also not very persuasive. After all, it is a remote connection.

But the U.S. defense for its irrelevance regarding the rise of terrorism is also very poor. Though not purposefully, U.S. support for Israel and tolerance for Israel's overuse of violence did create frustrations among Arabs and Muslims, which is one of the causes of extremism. U.S. behavior in destroying Iraq's domestic order did provide fertile soil for the growth of terrorism, and some of its military assistance for FSA fall into the hands of ISIL, etc. Can the United States continue to avoid talking about its responsibility?

It is also wrong to expect that the United States could truly remove the threat of ISIL though its own efforts, although it is a part of the global endeavor, so it should be counted. Obama's objective in his latest commitment should be praised. This time, he promised that the United States will "degrade and destroy" ISIL, which sounds more or less like global justice, but in June this year, he only said that U.S. forces sent to Iraq will be to protect U.S. citizens and property.

However, besides the objective, very few points of his statements are worthy of praise. The United States is reluctant to cooperate with Iran and Syria, two of the major potential allies in the region, which are actually the actors that these tasks cannot be fulfilled without.

What's more, Obama openly claimed that the United States will train Syrian rebels to defeat ISIL. But how can the forces, with the objective of overthrowing Bashar Assad's regime, invest their efforts in fighting against ISIL? The only interpretation is that Obama is thinking of the mission of toppling Bashar Assad while talking about ISIL. He is serious about fighting ISIL, but he also wants to take a free ride to remove Bashar Assad.

Then how can a strategy without a concentrated objective be accomplished?

Another major problem with Obama's new strategy is that it does not deal with ISIL on an ideological level. As mentioned above, ISIL is not only a physical entity but also a spirit and a world view. The removal of ISIL on a spiritual level will require tenacious efforts to install moderate religious ideology. But Barack Obama, judging by his speech, lacks that vision.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://china.org.cn/opinion/jinliangxiang.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.