The only serious argument for U.S. involvement is the one made by the president, that America’s presence is directed at ISIS. But the “caliphate” is dead. There may be a few plots of land—two percent, according to U.S. officials—still under ISIS control. But if the Syrian government and what is left of “moderate” insurgents, along with Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates cannot prevent an Islamic State renaissance, it is a problem Washington cannot fix. The group is likely to shift from aggression to terrorism, but counterterrorism does not require America to effectively annex a section of Syria.

In fact, by intervening in 2014 the United States relieved the states most threatened by ISIS of their responsibility to confront the Islamic State. The Saudis quickly shifted to their murderous misadventure in Yemen. The Erdogan government even facilitated ISIS activity in Syria. At the same time, Washington backed radical jihadist groups, including the local Al Qaeda affiliate, judged to be slightly less bad than ISIS. Much of America’s aid to “moderates” ended up in the hands of Islamic radicals. American policy was almost a complete bust.

Finally, administration policy is illegal. Congress never authorized U.S. military involvement to battle Assad’s government, Iranian forces, Iran-backed militias, Russia, or, if Operation Olive Branch goes spectacularly awry, Turkey. Indeed, Congress never bothered to authorize the fight against the Islamic State. The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ran out years ago. To expand a fight that already was illegal simply reaffirms the death of the Constitution’s demand that the legislative branch approve military action.

The United States has no cause to remain involved in Syria. America has no interests of note in what has become the fulcrum of multinational conflict. Over the past month, observed the Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “A former al-Qaeda affiliate has shot down a Russian jet, using a Chinese-made missile; Kurdish forces have shot down a Turkish helicopter, using an Iranian-made missile; Iran has flown a drone into Israel, across Russian-monitored Syrian airspace; Israel has bombed twelve sites across Syria in retaliation; and the U.S. response to a Russian-backed sneak attack on oil-and-gas fields near Deir al-Zour killed perhaps scores of Russian mercenaries, overflowing the local morgue.”

President Trump expects the American military to sort this out?

Author Steven Metz complained that this geopolitical mess “doesn’t bode well for American leadership in the conflict-stricken parts of the world, especially the Middle East and Africa.” However, “American leadership,” such as it is, long has been part of the problem. Indeed, nowhere has the U.S. role been more malign than in the Middle East. Better for Washington to realize its limitations and adopt what George W. Bush once called a more “humble” foreign policy.

Today American forces in Syria are being used to break up a nation, confront neighboring forces invited in by the local government, arm ethnic forces under attack by a treaty ally next door, and face off against units of a nuclear-armed power also invited in by the duly constituted government. It is a mad policy, which no administration could manage competently. It is an approach that, frankly, one would expect, based on their past rhetoric, from Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

The United States did what it needed to in Syria: defeated the Islamic State. Now everyone else in the Middle East should play clean-up. They are likely to botch the job, but that isn’t Washington’s responsibility. It’s time to bring home America’s troops. After all, they have a parade to prepare for.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America’s New Global Empire.

Image:  Syrians living in Istanbul gather in front of the Russian Consulate during a protest in Istanbul, Turkey February 22, 2018. ​