We went all-in on Iraq, overthrowing the dictator and committing troops to winning, enduring casualties to defeat our enemies, won the war--and then left Iraq on its own to fight the remnants of the jihadis and resist Iranian pressure.
Now we are back in Iraq, fighting.
We stayed out of Syria and didn't even try to help rebels kill the dictator.
Now we are fighting in Syria.
We kept our troop out of Libya, bombing until locals killed the dictator, and did not do much to help the locals sort out their mess.
Now we are thinking of entering that fight.
With this history of doing different things yet ending up fighting jihadis anyway, I count it as a victory for reality-based thinking that after escalating the fight in Afghanistan twice and enduring a lot more casualties in the process, that the administration is rethinking our big skedaddle from Afghanistan, where our war on jihadis began in October 2001 after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks here:
"I don't see any drawdowns" in the near future, said James Dobbins, Obama's former special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He predicted Obama would leave the decision to the next president.
"They are just hoping that things hold together and they won't have to face a decision on whether to actually implement the force reduction they're talking about until late summer, early fall, by which time the administration will be on its last legs," Dobbins said.
Seven years into the administration, with hope and change liberally applied to the Islam problem, and a lesson is learned: jihadis aren't George W. Bush's fault.
All hail the Clue Bat!
