The Obama administration keeps making contradictory announcements. First the president promises there will be no US combat troops in Iraq and Syria. Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey lets it be known in Congress that a situation could yet arise where US troops are necessary. So who do we believe?

Probably both. Obama is speaking as a politician who knows full well how unpopular further military adventures are. But General Dempsey is a soldier, and he wants to keep all options on the table to defeat the "Islamic State" - including ground troops. Most experts in Washington agree with him - IS cannot just beaten with airstrikes alone. And as yet no one knows whether the Iraqi government troops, the Free Syrian Army, and the Kurdish fighters are strong enough to put the Islamists on the defensive.

Untimely debate

The talk about ground forces in Iraq and Syria comes at a very bad time for Obama. In seven weeks' time, the Americans will elect a whole new House of Representatives and a third of the Senate. The latest polls put the Republicans ahead, with the main reason being Obama's often contradictory foreign policy.

The uncertainty over sending combat troops to the Middle East is a prime example. For months now only a small majority of US citizens have approved of the president's policies, and that has had an effect on the Democratic Party, who are in danger of losing their majority in the Senate.

The consequences would be a disaster for Obama. Governing through the end of his tenure would become even more difficult. He would become the classic lame duck president. Some say he needn't even bother making new plans or reforms - to immigration policy, for instance. But we're not at that stage yet. With his latest speech at a Florida air force base, he had wanted to end the discussion about ground troops in Iraq. But he didn't succeed. It will continue. His political opponents will make sure of that.