When Mosul fell to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in June, the U.S. understood that there was something wrong with their Middle East policy. The longer they underestimated the situation the more their interests in Iraq would be under threat.Normally, everybody would expect that the U.S. would at least try to have a go at the situation, and well, have a comprehensive plan to make things right, but many were tired of backing the wrong horse. And they were right. The White House has been full of people who suffer from professional deformation or occupational psychosis, so instead of looking at things from a broader perspective, they managed to mess up once again and chose the way to look at things as they want to see them. After taking a long time deciding, President Barrack Obama finally announced his plan against ISIS: "We will degrade and ultimately destroy [ISIS] through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy." But he was the man who won the presidency by campaigning against the George W. Bush administration's counter-insurgency plans. Even if ISIS would behead more Americans, making a counter-insurgency campaign himself would be something like putting a gun to his own head. So the action against ISIS would not involve American ground forces, he reassured that.The airstrikes begun and the weeks passed but ISIS has not budged. The strategy was weak and it was clear that the coalition needs ground forces to make progress.The U.S. already saw that there was not a rough and ready Iraqi army when the Iraqis abandoned their positions allowing ISIS to take Mosul over so easily. The financial support, military aid and training were all good for nothing. When the armed peshmerga forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) seized Kirkuk, the White House thought that they had found their heroes, but it only took a short time for ISIS to come to the doors of Irbil. The Syrian opposition forces were weak after fighting alone against the Bashar Assad regime and Hezbollah, as well as ISIS, thanks to the U.S.'s continued lip service without any real support.It would take a long time to build up ground forces in both Iraq and Syria. Obama was in no rush, but dominos were falling quickly. Without that, the coalition has only helped the Assad regime and Shiite-dominated Iraqi government. To be clearer, the only one who benefits from the strikes has been Iran. The U.S knows that there needs to be a regular army - an army that will undertake the mission by being the U.S.'s proxy boots on the ground will prevent the coalition from being Iran's proxy army.The "lucky" boots that the U.S. fixed its eyes on was Turkey, but they didn't know how to convince Turkey to go on its own, especially after the leaking of the top security meeting in March 2014 and the perversion of the intelligence chief's words as a false flag in order to stop Turkey.Ankara has not been eager to be on the ground alone and if the operation excludes Assad, who is the cause of all the problems in Syria including ISIS. After the rescue of the 49 consular staff held hostage by ISIS, which raised their hopes up but were short-lasting, the claims the Tomb of Suleiman Shah was surrounded were made up and circulated again. But Turkey didn't take the bait.Right on cue, the ISIS siege of Kobani has lent a helping hand to the U.S. With the media campaign and manipulated public pressure, as if the West were sensitive and concerned with the humanitarian crisis in the region, and Turkey is the bad guy, they are forcing Turkey all the way to go to fight ISIS on their terms using the Kobani crisis. Turkey is not running away from fighting ISIS. Ankara just doesn't accept being a puppet of the West. It wants to deal with the main problem even if it deals with it on its own - not just dealing with the symptoms as dealing with the symptoms will not treat the cancer.