MAD MISSION CREEP

The nation's top military leader [Gen.Martin Dempsey] told Congress Thursday that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops as they engage in more complex missions in the campaign against Islamic State militants.
....

Joining him at the witness table was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said the coalition was making progress in the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle. 
....

Hagel maintained that the U.S. personnel will not be involved in ground combat.

Tell me another, Mr Secretary.

The US should be out of the Middle East altogether, except for strictly humanitarian purposes to aid the vast numbers of refugees who have lost their homes or been driven out into surrounding territory. I do not speak of humanitarian purposes as broadly as the Obama administration interprets the phrase to include members of the US military, arms, and other types of military aid. The US has made the situation worse rather than better each time we intervene, and it's way past time for us to allow the countries in the Middle East to work out their own destinies.

With regard to humanitarian aid, our efforts fall woefully short, considering our part in contributing to the chaos of death and destruction that now exists.

WHAT SHOULD THE US DO ABOUT IRAQ?

Dexter Filkins in a blog post in The New Yorker:

For many months, the Obama and Maliki governments talked about keeping a residual force of American troops in Iraq, which would act largely to train Iraq’s Army and to provide intelligence against Sunni insurgents. (It would almost certainly have been barred from fighting.) Those were important reasons to stay, but the most important went largely unstated: it was to continue to act as a restraint on Maliki’s sectarian impulses, at least until the Iraqi political system was strong enough to contain him on its own. The negotiations between Obama and Maliki fell apart, in no small measure because of a lack of engagement by the White House. Today,many Iraqis, including some close to Maliki, say that a small force of American soldiers—working in non-combat roles—would have provided a crucial stabilizing factor that is now Iraq. Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and theywould become your partners.” President Obama wanted the Americans to come home, and Maliki didn’t particularly want them to stay.

My comment in response to the post:

Dexter, years ago, I read your brilliant articles in the New York Times when you covered the Battle of Fallujah,  and I sent you emails commending you for your courage and honesty in reporting on the battle.  You answered my emails and we corresponded for a while.  I know you know Iraq far better than I do and that you came to care for the welfare of the Iraqi people while you reported from their war-torn country.

Still, I am shocked and surprised that you blame Obama's "disengagement" from Iraq for part of the killing and chaos we see today.  The president inherited a papered-over chaotic mess.  The Bush/Cheney administration wrecked the country, and there was no way Obama could have fixed the situation.  You'd have to make the case for me that a few hundred or even a few thousand US military left in the country would have made a difference.

You say:

Sami al-Askari, a Maliki confidant, told me for my article this spring, “If you had a few hundred here, not even a few thousand, they would be coöperating with you, and they would become your partners.”

Why would you take these words at face-value?  Maliki wanted us out, and we wanted out, so a very strong case would have had to be made to both sides to keep our military there.  Now it's all gone bad, and Maliki wants us back.  As others have already said, Iraq is three countries which were grouped into one geographical mass by foreign powers, and the movement now is strongly toward break-up.  I fail to understand how a small group of American military could make a difference, and I fail to see how the Obama administration is to blame.

When we send arms to Syria, we are not sure whom we are arming, nor are we certain where the arms will end up.  The same will be true in Iraq, and we end up arming opposing forces in both countries.

I wondered where the war-mongering neo-cons, who are now nipping at Obama's heels, got their talking points, and I thought it was pure made-up let's-get Obama-at-any-cost talk because an election approaches, but, to my great disappointment, I see one answer in this blog post, alas.

TAKING ACTION IN SYRIA - ANDREW BACEVICH

How I wish for President Obama, Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, and every member of Congress would to watch and listen to Andrew Bacevich's brilliant and articulate commentary on the present decision facing the president and Congress with regard to launching missile attacks in Syria.  How I wish for every citizen in the country to watch.  Even those who disagree with Bacevich, might come away better informed.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, I mean, if I could have five minutes of the president's time, I'd say, "Mr. President, the issue really is not Syria. I mean, you're being told that it's Syria. You're being told you have to do something about Syria, that you have to make a decision about Syria. That somehow your credibility is on the line."

But I'd say, "Mr. President, that's not true. The issue really here is whether or not an effort over the course of several decades, dating back to the promulgation of the Carter Doctrine in 1980, an effort that extends over several decades to employ American power, military power, overt, covert military power exercise through proxies, an effort to use military power to somehow stabilize or fix or liberate or transform the greater Middle East hasn't worked.

“And if you think back to 1980, and just sort of tick off the number of military enterprises that we have been engaged in that part of the world, large and small, you know, Beirut, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and on and on, and ask yourself, 'What have we got done? What have we achieved? Is the region becoming more stable? Is it becoming more Democratic? Are we enhancing America's standing in the eyes of the people of the Islamic world?'

"The answers are, 'No, no, and no.' So why, Mr. President, do you think that initiating yet another war, 'cause if we bomb Syria, it's a war, why do you think that initiating yet another war in this protracted enterprise is going to produce a different outcome? Wouldn't it be perhaps wise to ask ourselves if this militarized approach to the region maybe is a fool’s errand.

"Maybe it's fundamentally misguided. Maybe the questions are not tactical and operational, but strategic and political."

From the transcript.