Post-America has boots on the ground in both Syria and Iraq now

A frequent commenter here at LITD recently chimed in under a post about Iran saying that "the Middle East is not ours," and, when the observation was made that his position could be seen as giving a pass to the mullahs, said that if war were the answer to the region's ills, the W-era policy would have done the trick.

War per se, of course, is not a policy but an occasionally and unfortunately inevitable means by which a policy is pursued.

What Mideast policy - and foreign policy generally - should have as its first principle is consistency, and that consistency should be on behalf of national security. Of course, much emanates from that core tenet. It entails an understanding that the United States of America is - or maybe the operative term is "should be" - the most reliable preserver of Western civilization, and therefore must assure all Western nations (including Westernized Middle Eastern and East Asian nations) that it will not falter in so preserving. Then, driven by the best values distilled from the West's long history, the United States is in a position to recognize mischief by bad guys before it rises to the level of an actual threat.

In the case of Iran, for instance, that would have meant seeing that Shiite radicals were the most likely force to fill the power vacuum it we let Shah Reza Pahlavi fall in the late 1970s. And, yes, it would have meant, given that he did indeed fall and the radicals did indeed come to power, that there should have been no back-channel communications, and certainly not arms sales, to Iran in the mid-1980s. And that would have been the time to make damn sure an Iranian nuclear program never got off the ground. Move forward to the immediate aftermath of the September 2001 attacks and it would have meant bringing all available intelligence and propaganda resources available to bear in fomenting regime change in Iran. It was ripe for it at the time. (The last great opportunity was in June 2009.)

In the case of Syria, it would have meant treating the Assad regime as an unqualified enemy throughout the years. No dinners between Assad and then-Senator Global-Test. No patty-cake visits from Nancy Pelosi. No statements from Hillionaire about Assad being a force for stability. We therefore would have been exhibiting consistency when the Arab Spring occurred and post-America, under the Most Equal Comrade, switched to calling for Assad's ouster. Alas, we obliterated any hint of consistency when the MEC allowed Assad to cross the chemical-weapons red line.

Consistency driven by self-identification as the West's preserver would have meant being the ally to Israel that were were supposed to be, and never engaging in pointless conferences such as Oslo and never letting a terrorist like Arafat visit the White House.

Alas, post-American policy has been downright incoherent. The Most Equal Comrade has sworn that post-America would not be drawn back into combat in the Middle East, and now that's exactly where we are:

The U.S. will send a small number of U.S. special operations forces into Syria as part of a shift in its strategy against ISIS, officials said Friday. 

A senior administration official confirmed that President Barack Obama has authorized a contingent of less than 50 special operations forces to deploy into northern Syria. 

"We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the official explained. 

The White House was expected to announce the decision later Friday.

"Moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective." What a nice touch.


But, as has been the way post-America had done this sort of thing, the measures being taken are less than what is required for a decisive outcome (also known as victory):

Rep. Mac Thornberry, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, said the expected announcement made clear the White House was feeling the pressure of a "failed policy" against ISIS.
"I'm concerned that the administration is trying to put in place limited measures — too late — that are not going to make a difference," he told NBC News. "I don't see a strategy towards accomplishing a goal, I see an effort to run out the clock without disaster."
Obama and his administration have come under mounting pressure amid signs the anti-ISIS coalition has stalled or at least failed to turn the tide against the militants — including the recent Pentagon decision to abandon a failed program to train and equip Syrian rebels. 

Small signs of a sea change in strategy have been filtering out in recent weeks and gained steam in the wake of a U.S.-backed raid to free ISIS hostages that cost the life of a Delta Force commando. 

SecDef Ashton Carter is using the term "combat" to characterize what post-America is engaged in.

We also have troops on the ground once again in northern Iraq.

These are the fruits of a policy consisting of preening about an "international community" and "all sides tamping down the rhetoric" and "reset" and "getting a political process on track."

No, this doesn't make the MEC regime into a bunch of warmongers. It exposes them as being so in thrall to a fantasy vision of a world where conferences in Vienna, Geneva and Paris are worth a damn that they let Western civilization crumble in real time.