Anyone who thinks the US foreign policy is some kind of well thought out mechanism should read these two reports. The first one is nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated claims labeled as "findings", with no foot notes, no statistics, no links to backing research... nothing!
"ISIS is reconstituting in Iraq and Syria." Ok, how many tanks do they have? How many men do they have? How much area? "Iran is entrenching itself in Syria." Same questions, what does "entrenching" even mean exactly? "Withdrawing from Syria will damage trust from US allies." Which allies are we talking? Israel? Someone else? What about allies with whom a US withdrawal will be viewed favorably? Why should we care in the first place?
The report then goes on to list a series of "objectives", which again are merely stated with no supporting arguments in their favor. Control one third of the Syrian territory... why one third and not one quarter? Or not three eights? And it must be the areas with "valuable hydrocarbon, water, and agricultural resources". Is that what this is about-- colonization to get resources? Another "objective" is to "withhold reconstruction aid" until the US can establish a "viable political process". Does it sound wise to withhold aid? What does a "viable" political process means? No terms are defined-- does "viable" mean the election only of a president who will do whatever the US says?
The line which really got me busting out laughing was this one, bold emphasis is mine: "The United States' objectives are sound but ambitious given limited resource levels. Stated objectives suffer from an ends-means mismatch." Oh yeah, totally sound!! And an "ends-means mismatch"? Hah! Who wrote that?? What a hilarious line!
If I were the US President, and I was handed this report by such intellectual luminaries as Chuck Schumer, and it had exactly these contents, there is no way I would heed any of this "advice". In fact, I'd probably drop it straight into the rubbish bin.
The second document in the article is nothing more than a list of Israel's national defense risks, which probably tells you all you need to know about the US involvement not just in Syria, but the Middle East in general. Specifically, right after 9/11 Iran was listed as one of the "seven countries" which needed to be "taken out", which is why they are being singled out for mention in these Syria-related reports: it's the attempted establishment of a bogeyman.