Is Trump planning to send more troops to the Middle East — or just testing the water?

While much of the nation’s political, media and public attention was focused on House Democrats’ impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, “U.S. military officials” told The Wall Street Journal the White House was considering dispatching up to 14,000 additional troops to the Middle East.

In normal news cycles when a president is not facing a historic impeachment by Congress, the possibility of such a substantial military deployment would be a major event with all the costs and dangers inherent in such movements of lethal might into turbulent areas.

The addition of that many personnel would essentially double the deployment of U.S. troops to the Mideast just since May, ostensibly to discourage any further ill-advised adventures by Iran’s troubled regime of mullahs.

What would be shocking, if this new deployment actually materialized, would be the fact that it runs directly counter to Trump’s oft-expressed determination to bring American troops home and avoid further overseas military involvements with no end date.

This was a popular campaign promise in 2016, and Trump has repeated that desire as recently as several weeks ago regarding Syria and during his surprise Thanksgiving visit to U.S. troops in Afghanistan. “We will continue to work tirelessly,” he told them, “until the day when we can bring each and every one of you home and safe to your family — and that day is coming.”

Of course, the reported prospect of significant troop buildup could be one of Washington’s favorite political ploys, a trial balloon floated to a select media outlet so eager for an exclusive that it agreed to mask sources’ identities.

If public reaction is seriously negative, this enables a president to truthfully deny ever having ordered such a thing. And no one need take any blame. Or the commander in chief could decide to send “only” 7,000 more troops and appear prudent, though that was his intent all along.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper says firmly there is currently no such deployment planned. Perhaps you’ve noticed some firm statements by the Trump administration sometimes have a way of becoming less firm, often on a dime.

Such shows of force can be effective diplomatic tools. Recall when North Korea’s Kim Jong Un was threatening to annihilate an American city with his new ICBMs, Trump dispatched not one, but two massive carrier strike forces to the region. Eventually, that led Kim to initiate talks with Trump, which are better than launches.

And the deployment of some 30,000 U.S. troops right by the Korean Peninsula’s misnamed demilitarized zone since 1953 has helped prevent a second North Korean invasion.

Trump criticized his predecessor for being too predictable in foreign affairs. But there’s a crucial difference between predictability and consistency. Take Syria, for instance.

Like former President Barack Obama, Trump warned that regime not to use chemical weapons on civilians. Unlike Obama, when it did, Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to destroy much of Syria’s launching base.

Then, a year ago without staff consultation, Trump peremptorily announced a total withdrawal of some 2,000 special forces from northeastern Syria, abandoning Kurdish forces who’d been key to destroying the ISIS caliphate. Some U.S. troops left. More came in. No total withdrawal.

This fall, again after a phone call with Turkey’s strongman leader, an impulsive Trump announced a total withdrawal because, “We have to bring our people back home.” Trouble is, those troops did not come home; they simply moved to other trouble spots. In fact, the president simultaneously dispatched more than 500 other troops back into northeastern Syria to guard oilfields.

“We are getting out of the endless wars,” Trump added. But five days later, with no set end date, he ordered 2,000 additional troops to Saudi Arabia as an announced new deterrence to Iranian aggression.

That force has since been enhanced. And now, potentially, 14,000 more could be destined for the region. Or not.

That’s all unpredictable for sure. It’s also inconsistent.

Iran’s economy has been stricken by stricter economic sanctions since Trump pulled the U.S. out of the nuclear pact last year. Under pressure, the regime ordered police to fire on widespread mass protests over economic stringencies.

The sanctions were designed to force Iran to negotiate a new nuclear pact and stop its support of international terrorism. Neither has occurred.

But bombs damaged several tankers in the Persian Gulf this year and in mid-September, a flock of bomb-laden drones flew in from the direction of Iran to seriously damage Saudi refineries. Iran denied involvement.

Put two countries with unpredictable leadership under intense domestic pressures in close proximity with vast amounts of armaments and decades of suspicions, and explosive things can happen. Even if the public in both nations are paying attention to loud domestic confrontations.

This story was originally published December 10, 2019 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Is Trump planning to send more troops to the Middle East — or just testing the water?."