Any blunt assessment of the mess in the Middle East leaves Barack Obama's legacy with a black eye.
Of course, on the other side of the aisle are chicken hawks clamoring to send in more troops to bolster their fantasy of a democratic Iraq – and the trillion-plus we spent for the Bush war made it a costly fantasy. So, like Mississippi does for the bottom of any state ranking, Obama can count on history to keep W. between him and the very bottom of presidential failures.
We now see Iraq as it should have been seen before we decided to take out Saddam Hussein: a Sunni area (now largely controlled by the Islamic State), a Shiite area (largely defended by an Iranian-led Shiite militia) and a Kurdish region (desiring a sovereign Kurdistan, defended by the Peshmerga).
Our senior generals are acting like cheerleaders for a defeated Iraqi army they trained (Martin Dempsey and David Petraeus got their fourth stars based upon their “success” in this training). It appears we are getting into bed with both Iran and Bashar Assad to beat IS.
We're contemplating sending more military advisers to Iraq. To what end? Because they will have to work with the Iranian Quds Force - which already seems firmly entrenched in that job.
Why not just ask Assad to use some of his chemical weapons on IS? Now that would be a bold move from a president whose only boldness so far has been stating that Trayvon Martin could have been his son.