[The Telegraph] For American foreign policy, winning the war against Isil quickly would be pointless and potentially disastrous.America and its allies have not won the war against Isil, and are not even, at the moment, winning. According to the view of the world taken by President Obama, however, this does not represent failure.
The truth is - and this is no cheap smear - Mr Obama does not want to win the war against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - yet. He thinks winning quickly would be pointless and potentially disastrous.
In Iraq, his professorial mind sees Isil as being one part of a multilateral equation, involving Iraqis who are Sunni Muslim, like Isil, but also the Kurds, the Shia majority, the Iranians, and the sweep of American involvement since 2003.
America supports the Kurds against Isil - but not so far as to encourage them to seek independence. That would involve breaking up Iraq, which America promised not to do after the 2003 invasion - and some American promises have to be kept.
America also supports the Shia majority - inside and outside the formal army - who with enough US involvement could defeat Isil. They are already doing so, in some places outside Isil's heartland Anbar province.
However, the Shia's more significant backers are the Iranians, so a swift result would be to make Iraq's Sunni population captive to Tehran.
More importantly, a combined Shia, American and Iranian victory over Isil would confirm the very narrative of Sunni victimhood that has fueled its rise. Mr Obama believes that this would only be a temporary victory, like his predecessor President George W Bush's two conquests of Sunnis in Iraq - over Saddam Hussein, and over the subsequent rebellion by the earlier version of Islamic State of Iraq, before the American pull-out.
Interesting theory, but I doubt the Champ owns the strategy. He couldn't capture the neuronal image if graphically outlined on sheets of butcher paper.