Obama Cautious on War, But Successor Won't Be

President Obama's decision to send 300 military advisors to bolster a panicked Iraqi army in full retreat from Islamic jihadists will hardly quell the furious debate about American military intervention in the Middle East. The reaction to Iraq's continuing agony underscores that Obama's skepticism about armed intervention has planted only shallow roots in Washington.

Despite the public's apparent antipathy to overseas adventurism, both political parties seem on track to banishing Obama-style realism from the Oval Office when he clears his desk in January 2017. Republican leaders have successfully contained their grassroots isolationist revolt, notwithstanding Senator Rand Paul. Hillary Clinton's virtually uncontested candidacy among Democrats bodes well for a return to kinetic interventionism in the president's own party once he is out of the way.

Enthusiasm for robust interventionism now seems hard-wired into Republican DNA. It wavered only once, when Obama sought congressional authorization for military action against Syria to end its use of chemical weapons. But Republicans remain remarkably unrepentant about backing George Bush's invasion of Iraq. Far from it: they denounce Obama for respecting the Iraqis' demand that U.S. troops go home. The party still rallies to Karl Rove's vision that "we're an empire now."

Hillary Clinton, at least, acknowledges that the war "turned out to be a mistake" and says she is "regretful" about "how the war unfolded." She also told the Council on Foreign Relations last week that, on U.S. military involvements, "I think the president has read the American public well"--although "that may not always lead to the consequences one wishes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-laurenti/obama-cautious-on-war-but_b_5516687.html

Let's nip it in the bud now.