Iraq. Again.

President Barack Obama shakes hands with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after a joint press event on Camp Victory, Iraq, April 7, 2009. Obama spoke to hundreds of U.S. troops during his surprise visit to Iraq to thank them for their service. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

After American soldiers left Iraq in 2011 following nearly a decade of war, it was widely believed that the government there would stabilize long enough to hold together a fragile country.

Uh, no.  Right now the Iraqi government, headed by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, is hanging on by its fingernails as a militant Islamic army marches south toward Baghdad.  Iraq's forces have so far shown no desire to fight back, surrendering at the drop of a hat to a group named ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) that's considered to be more extreme than al-Qaeda, if that's possible.  ISIS has already taken control of portions of Syria and Iraq, intending to impose sharia law on those areas.

To meet this threat, and to avoid the embarrassment of losing all the ground the United States had gained (at the cost of over 4000 soldiers) in the late and unlamented Iraq war, President Barack Obama announced Thursday that he's sending 300 military advisers to help out the Iraqi army.  He's also sending some Marines to protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.  Airstrikes might be necessary.  But the important thing is, so far as the President is concerned, there will be no "boots on the ground".  That means no combat forces.  Period.

And the next question you're probably asking is, does no really mean no in this case?

This situation has created a lot of clucking among the war hawks in Washington and in the conservative media, the ones who cheered on President George W. Bush's decision to declare war on a country on the pretense of "weapons of mass destruction".  These people are saying that Obama has made the mistake of pulling the troops out of Iraq too soon, and now look what happened.  It's just like what happened with Vietnam when the Viet Cong finally overran Saigon, and what could very well happen if the Taliban conquers Afghanistan once the Americans leave.

Obama apparently believes that the United States should be backing off from its "world policeman" role and let countries like Iraq and Afghanistan work out their own problems.  Which is nice in theory, but maybe the next President will create an excuse to meddle in the affairs of another country in the name of national security.  Especially if that country happens to have a resource essential to keeping the American economy going.  In Iraq, it's called oil.  And ISIS reportedly has taken over a well there.

Then there's the question of whether or not the U.S. should cooperate with Iran, who as it happens is also helping their Shiite brothers in Iraq drive back the Sunni invaders.  The U.S. and Iran are wary about each other, given the controversy over Iran's alleged nuclear program.  But if this works out, who knows?

President Obama may not want to fight Bush's wars any more, but that's what he's been doing for most of his term in office.  If he is really serious about letting Iraq and Afghanistan handle their own affairs, he would have brought home the troops long ago.  All of them.