This Isn't Mission Creep--It's Mission Emphasis

I do not see "mission creep" in Syria and Iraq.

We have many missions in Syria and Iraq. The fact that we settled on the anti-ISIL mission the last four years doesn't mean that the other missions didn't exist during that time. The other missions are just gaining more visibility now.

Further, our experience with leaving Iraq in 2011 only to see ISIL rise up and take over western and northern Iraq in the first half of 2014 argues for the logic of staying in an anti-ISIL effort to avoid having to fight Iraq War 3.0 after again leaving too early without making sure jihadis are ground to dust and the Iraqi government can handle the job--as well as helping Iraq reduce Iranian influence that if unchecked would create an Iraqi version of Lebanon's Hezbollah.

My view doesn't preclude debating our commitments and missions. I've said that explicitly in regard to Syria. I do worry that going on auto-pilot will lead to friendly casualties that we find our people aren't prepared to endure.

And in Iraq, we've long had a mission of helping Iraq restore order and build rule of law after the guns mostly fall silent. That's "mission restoration"--one we failed to focus on in 2011--and not a new mission.

What we are seeing is not "mission creep" where forces go in for a low level mission and then have added missions dumped on them without getting the resources to achieve them and without debate about the greater mission.