US troops are moving back into Iraq to secure the huge embassy. Obama is also considering using special forces to work with Iraqi military to help them deal with the terrorists. I guess Obama learned about this by watching CNN, and decided he needed to do something.

regardless of how Obama felt about this war to begin with, he inherited a much more stable Iraq. Obama announced to the world (and the bad guys were listening) exactly when we would be withdrawing. Many people warned this was a dumb strategy, as the bad guys would simply go into hiding and wait until we left, and then start the massacre.Obama disagreed. Who was right and who was wrong, exactly?

As usual, once enough time has passed to see the effect of his policy, we see a significant deterioration. If we simply left a small peace-keeping force there, then maybe (no way of knowing for sure) we wouldn't be deailing with such an amboldened enemy. So now our forces are going back anyway, but facing a more dangerous threat than existed when we left.

Kudos, Mr President. Kudos. Maybe Jay-Z can write a rap song about your presidency and all the spectacular things that have resulted from it.

Maybe is the key phrase.

Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there. If they don't want them, why should we stay and risk our troops for a war we should have never been in, in the first place.

We're going to be in the same boat with Afghanistan, should we just say FU to the Afgan gov't and leave the troops there, now, what, 12 years into the war? Risk more casualties of US forces?

Maybe is the key phrase.

Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there. If they don't want them, why should we stay and risk our troops for a war we should have never been in, in the first place.

We're going to be in the same boat with Afghanistan, should we just say FU to the Afgan gov't and leave the troops there, now, what, 12 years into the war? Risk more casualties of US forces?

"Assuming of course, we got an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave the troops there."

"why should we stay and risk our troops "

Given what is happening there right now as I type this, how can you ask that question?

The answer is this...better to ask the troops to take a little risk to maintain stability, then to watch the country descend into chaos, wait until terrosists take over, and then be in a situation where many more troops are asked to take a great deal more risk.

Or to answer your question more simply...an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I guess Obama never learned that at Harvard.

We created the stable Iraq that existed a few years ago. We could us ethat fact to pressure them into letting us stay. We stayed in Germany, Italy, and South Korea, as a stabilizing presence.

"Risk more casualties of US forces?"

RIROCKHOUND, do you remember an event from not all that long ago, called 09/11? Do you know how that happened? Terrorists were given sanctuary by a government, and allowed to train, plan, and raise funds. Can you really say with a straight face, that we have no interest in preventing Al Queda from running a nation with vast oil supplies? We needn't be concerned if Al Queda takes over those oil fields?

I don't get how you can be so obtuse, and I really don't get how our POTUS can be. You can make a very compelling case that we should not have invaded Iraq. But th efact is, we did invade, and now the question that matters is, what do we do about it? Obama chose to tell the enemy exactly when we were leaving, against the advice of many people. It appears as if, once again, the situation turned to vomit as soon as he got his hands on it.

This is what you get when you elect a guy who spent his whole career in an Ivy League faculty room, and sdoesn't know anything about the way the world actually works. Some ideas sound awesome in the Harvard facuty room, but really aren't all that practical on the street.

Another Triumph for Women's rights..

"an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
So, we go back in, we stabilize, and then what. We're there for how long?


" Obama chose to tell the enemy exactly when we were leaving"
So... we could have snuck out? If we just up and left, Al Qaeda wouldn't have noticed?

Again, how long do we have troops at risk, in a country where they are not wanted.

You're right. This is a war we never should have been involved with.

someone has to mark some hot targets with Lazer's

Rockhound -

"So, we go back in, we stabilize, and then what. We're there for how long?"

Until the risk of pulling out is lower than the risk of staying. It's not rocket science.

"So... we could have snuck out?"

I don't know of a military strategist in the world, who doesn't think it's a bad idea to give the enemy years to plan for your departure. The empirical evidence of the last 7 days would seem to indicate that people like me were correct, does it not?

"If we just up and left, Al Qaeda wouldn't have noticed?"

You're either very slow on the uptake, or you are being belligerent for no reason. We should not have left until the Iraq military was capable of dealing with the residual threat. The events of the past few days make a very compelling case that we left too soon. Am I really going too fast for you when I say that?

"You're right. This is a war we never should have been involved with"

I never said I feel that way, in fact I think it was worth it (or at least, it was worth it until Obama gave away everything we accomplished). That's my opinion. What I said was, a compelling case could be made that it was a waste. I just happen to disagree.

What's not in dispute, is this...it was irrefutably a waste if we allow all the gains we made there, to vanish at the hands of murderous, barbaric cowards. I don't see what purpose that serves, unless you aren't rooting for our side.

Maybe it's time to annex Iraq .
This is never going to end .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

You're either very slow on the uptake, or you are being belligerent for no reason.

Am I really going too fast for you when I say that?
.

You must be fun at parties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

Bingo.

'Stay until the risk is less than leaving'

Will we ever get to that point Jim?

But, you got me, I want the terrorists to win. :smash:

This war is close to 1400 years old. The borders they are fighting over were largely set by European colonial powers. You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million. Or maybe we could set up another puppet for another thirty years, like Saddam Hussein, the shah of Iran, Jordan, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil, like the Pentagon proposed.

"You think we will cure it with a few soldiers or even half a million."

The Surge worked. I don't think the US military can help here...I know it.

"We need to spend the money on alternatives to middle eastern oil"

Right. As soon as we all start driving a Toyota Prius and using solar panels, Al Queda will lay down their arms...

Bingo.

'Stay until the risk is less than leaving'

Will we ever get to that point Jim?

But, you got me, I want the terrorists to win. :smash:

"Will we ever get to that point Jim?"

I don't know. But if pulling out emboldens the terrorists to the point where thee are within reach of having their country, then given what happened on 09/11, I don't know how you can be OK with that. You'd stand by and watch Al Queda create their own sovereign state? You wouldn't risk mush to prevent that?

If you think we should never have invaded Iraq, that's even more reason why we should have stayed...we broke it, it's our responsibility to fix it. Also, what would you say to the many Iraq citizens who helped us? We left, Al Queda takes over, and the terrorists can start executing the folks who stuck their necks out to help us...

I don't get it, I just don't get it.

I don't think you want the bad guys to win, but you seem opposed to stopping the bad guys before they have their own oil-rich country. I'm stunned you aren't concerned by that. It doesn't matter whether or not you think we should have invaded. The fact is, our departure created this vacuum, and that makes it our fault. Do we not have any responsibility to fix what we broke? Do you tell your kids to only live up to their responsibilities as long as it's convenient for them?

You must be fun at parties.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm the life of a party, a riot!

First of all this incompetent administration should've never been caught this far offguard in Iraq. This is like a big surprise to them.
By the time Pres. Obama reacts to the situation it will be much much worse. It will be about the illusion of doing something.
What a freaking mess the next president is going to inherit!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, they're on the run to kill and conquer any person or country
that doesn't believe the way they do. They won't stop. I feel bad for those
citizens and militia that helped us left behind.
Announcing a time table for withdrawal was the worse thing that could
of been done, and it was done for political reasons.

ISIS currently controls several oil fields in Iraq and looted the Iraq National Bank Branch in Mosul of about 450 million dollars

The American military-industrial-neocon complex wants more war. We must resist them.

How can this be.
Didn't Obozo tell us "Al Queda is on the run" in a speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


he MEANT: running for Office.

Announcing a time table for withdrawal was the worse thing that could
of been done, and it was done for political reasons.

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

Jim???

-spence

Do you know who negotiated the time table for the 2011 withdrawal? What was the political reason?

If you don't announce the time table, how do you do it - people just wake up in the morning and whole bases that were filled up with 000s of tanks, trucks, and 0,000s of troops have disappeared overnight?

I would assume the Administration that was in power? The Political reason, imho, was so Obama could fill his campaign promise.

You don't announce it. It just gives the enemy the time to sit back on their heels,regroup ,and make plans for what they will do after the withdrawal.
Kinda like what's happening now?

I stand corrected on the first statement, but standby the public announcement giving the enemy
the advantage of waiting out the time. Even gave isis the time to complete a yearbook of their accomplishments. They were so organized and ready they were able to capture Humvees and worse Stinger Missiles capable of bringing down commercial jets.

.

I think you need to do a little research.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush was forced by Congress who controlled the spending. He always fought against a timetable and deadline, for the reasons that are obvious . He vetoed the first attempt at a deadline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bush was forced by Congress who controlled the spending. He always fought against a timetable and deadline, for the reasons that are obvious . He vetoed the first attempt at a deadline.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Actually, Bush agreed to the 2011 withdrawal to get Iraq to agree to a status of forces agreement in 2008. Obama tried to negotiate it longer but no Iraqi politician would have it without US troops being subject to Iraqi laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim???

-spence

A fair question.

The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.

However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.

Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??

It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.

And let's face it . Obama's horrible lack of foreign policy has led to an emboldened al Qaeda ....that was not the case when Bush left the Whitehouse .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A fair question.

The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.

However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.

Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??

It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.


So..
Let me ask it this way.

The Iraqi government wanted U.S. troops out. The American public seemed to want the troops out.

If we had just left, rather than on a 'announced timeline' in 2011, we are still THREE years out from that. ISIS etc.. would still have had 3 years to plan, whether we announced this or not, correct?

So the bigger issue, as I see your (and the Neocon) argument Jim, is that basically we should still have had troops in Iraq.

So..
If we had just left, rather than on a 'announced timeline' in 2011, we are still THREE years out from that. ISIS etc.. would still have had 3 years to plan, whether we announced this or not, correct?



That exactly was the point I was going to make. It is not like once 1 base was emptied, the enemy wouldn't figure we were leaving all the bases. Blaming Bush for something that happened 3 years later is silly. The whole problem was that the Sunni's (and Kurds) where mostly excluded from the govern. Had they felt included, Iraq might not be in this situation.

A fair question.

The withdraw timetable that Obama followed, I believe, was constructed by the Bush administration. To be fair, I don't recall conservatives attacking Bush for letting the enemy know when we were leaving.

However. The fact is, when Obama was calling the shots, many people were telling him that it was the wrong time for a complete withdrawal. Obama said the withdrawal wouldn't jeopardize the gain we had made.

Who was wrong in this case? Spence? Spence??

It is unbelievable how often this guy is 100% wrong.
There will always be hawks pushing for a harder position.

As for the 100% remark. This is exactly the wrong way to view things. By that measure the Bush team was 100% wrong on just about everything as well. Actually by that measure they were more than 100% wrong. 1000%?

And to top it all of you have #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, perhaps the biggest advocate of the war and most wrong about everything out slamming Obama to make political hey just to get his daughter media attention because she couldn't get any support to run in Wyoming.

Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.

The simple fact is the situation is serious and if people think this is just another opportunity to pile on Obama they're doing this country -- and everything we've given -- a great disservice.

-spence

Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.
-spence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

There will always be hawks pushing for a harder position.

As for the 100% remark. This is exactly the wrong way to view things. By that measure the Bush team was 100% wrong on just about everything as well. Actually by that measure they were more than 100% wrong. 1000%?

And to top it all of you have #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, perhaps the biggest advocate of the war and most wrong about everything out slamming Obama to make political hey just to get his daughter media attention because she couldn't get any support to run in Wyoming.

Perhaps the most douchebaggery thing I've ever seen come from a VP and he's had his moments.

The simple fact is the situation is serious and if people think this is just another opportunity to pile on Obama they're doing this country -- and everything we've given -- a great disservice.

-spence

Do you even hear yourself type ???
Everything you accuse others of doing , you and your dear leader do X10
I'm not sure you want to bring douchebag vice presidents into this conversation do you??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you even hear yourself type ???
Everything you accuse others of doing , you and your dear leader do X10
I'm not sure you want to bring douchebag vice presidents into this conversation do you??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You should be more specific.

-spence

You should be more specific.

-spence

I think the whole douche bag
thing needs to stop ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the whole douche bag
thing needs to stop ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, no need to use that type of language. You'll start to sound like others on here.

I think the whole douche bag
thing needs to stop ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Are you putting me on the same platform as the former VP? Buck, that's quite a compliment.

-spence

Take a moment and read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/us/marine-cpl-william-kyle-carpenter-receives-medal-of-honor.html?ref=us#

That exactly was the point I was going to make. It is not like once 1 base was emptied, the enemy wouldn't figure we were leaving all the bases. Blaming Bush for something that happened 3 years later is silly. The whole problem was that the Sunni's (and Kurds) where mostly excluded from the govern. Had they felt included, Iraq might not be in this situation.

True and the Kurds are the only trustworthy group
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

These 2 groups have been killing each other for 1500 years, its not going to change. We have better odds at converting Spence to right wing conservatism than we have getting them to live in peace.

Blow the embassy and come home.

Let the tribes figure out the boundaries that have been in dispute since WWI. whatever's left over we'll talk to

These 2 groups have been killing each other for 1500 years, its not going to change. We have better odds at converting Spence to right wing conservatism than we have getting them to live in peace.





LOL :hihi:

Blow the embassy and come home.

It's not that simple. We need to make sure that they can't send more terrorists back here with airplanes or dirty bombs. We also should be loathe to dishonor those who died by surrendering all our gains, but that means absolutely nothing to Obama.

They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.

They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.
i.e. don't mix honor with policy for the troops.

-spence

Policy always changes.

Our military men and women's honor doesn't change.

I agree with you on this rare point Spence. Don't mix honor and policy.

Policy pulled out our troops from Iraq (left the US pressence at only the Embassy), things have changed for the worse. Syria and Iran both are assisting Iraq. The Iraqi leader seems content to pull all of his loyal troops into Baghdad for a general Custer style last stand.

The loss of honor (if there was any) was caused by policy change and wishful thinking, hoping the new govt was capable of securing itself.

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militants took a town an hour from Baghdad that is home to four natural gas fields on Thursday, another gain by Sunni insurgents who have swiftly taken large areas to the north and west of the Iraqi capital." (http://news.yahoo.com/militants-iraqi-gas-field-town-president-calls-parliament-091708902.html)

If they aren't fightign for their country, then we shouldn't waste our time either.

Time to reset and come home.

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militants took a town an hour from Baghdad that is home to four natural gas fields on Thursday, another gain by Sunni insurgents who have swiftly taken large areas to the north and west of the Iraqi capital." (http://news.yahoo.com/militants-iraqi-gas-field-town-president-calls-parliament-091708902.html)



Yes ,this has been a well planned strategy on their part, and having announced when we would withdraw gave them the time to plan and the right time to execute it.

They will always be able to send more terrorists back here. It is not a dishonor to my many fellow servicemen that have fallen to close the embassy and come home. The mission was never to take over the country or control it. Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path.

Where I live, the point of the Surge, the only point of the Surge, was to defeat the insurgetnts and restore stability. Even Obama eventually had to admit that the Surge was a spectacular success. And it came at a cost of American blood.

I was there, and politics aside, I can't imagine anyone else who was there, not feeling like it was all for nothing, if this incompetent will allow Iraq to descend back into chaos. Thanks to the Surge, Obama inherited a relatively stable Iraq. On his watch, it is crumbling.

"Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path."

Oh, is that what's happening? I thought terrorists were killing everyone not on their side, and violently taking control? Where do yo uget you rinformation from? One of us has been badly misinformed.

i.e. don't mix honor with policy for the troops.

-spence

How do you honor the troops, by relinquishing everytihng they fought for, at least during the Surge? Please explain how that's not dishonorong them?

Tell my company to take a hill, we'll take the hill. It's a spit in the face if, after Americans die taking that hill, we simply leave and allow the bad guys to immediately re-claim it. Is that really so hard to understand?

If we do this, what was the point of the Surge, exactly? Spence, can you explain that please?

Where I live, the point of the Surge, the only point of the Surge, was to defeat the insurgetnts and restore stability. Even Obama eventually had to admit that the Surge was a spectacular success. And it came at a cost of American blood.

I was there, and politics aside, I can't imagine anyone else who was there, not feeling like it was all for nothing, if this incompetent will allow Iraq to descend back into chaos. Thanks to the Surge, Obama inherited a relatively stable Iraq. On his watch, it is crumbling.

"Eventually we have to allow the folks who live there to choose their path."

Oh, is that what's happening? I thought terrorists were killing everyone not on their side, and violently taking control? Where do yo uget you rinformation from? One of us has been badly misinformed.

Hey I lost friends there too... Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out, left the state with an Embassy pressence only.
To escalate from an Embassy pressence to an army defending against ISIS who has already taken ALOT if the northern part of Iraq, is not feasible under our current administration.

I see Iraq and I feel we are going down the same route we did with Egypt and Libya where our strikes and actions helped the Muslim Brotherhood remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists.

Bottom line is I think the policy of the current President has let it deteriorate to an extent where there is no way to win. It's either by design or negligence, but its at the stage where, our only option is to close the Embassy and wait it out. Maybe in a few years we will have a leader that can engage in foreign policy, both in word and deed that will be able to work these things out, but for now, we'd be stupid to put our finest in harms way in Iraq, where the administration won't support them and won't let them do their job.

Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home before our Wonderous Leader repeats Banghazi again, this time with 100s dead instead of 3 or 4.

How do you honor the troops, by relinquishing everytihng they fought for, at least during the Surge? Please explain how that's not dishonorong them?

Tell my company to take a hill, we'll take the hill. It's a spit in the face if, after Americans die taking that hill, we simply leave and allow the bad guys to immediately re-claim it. Is that really so hard to understand?

If we do this, what was the point of the Surge, exactly? Spence, can you explain that please?

By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor? I mean, the architects of the war policy were wrong about so much, and we learned that they really didn't even have a good reason to think they were going to be right.

For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes) and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law.

A US troop presence would have also likely made the political situation worse and perhaps even accelerated a Sunni revolt pulling us back in even harder than today.

I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this other than more pressure on the Maliki government to be inclusive and more pressure on Russia to abandon Syria, neither of which was very feasible.

Ultimately we can't stay there forever. The World needs to buck up and realize this isn't America's problem alone.

-spence

Hey I lost friends there too... Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out, left the state with an Embassy pressence only.
To escalate from an Embassy pressence to an army defending against ISIS who has already taken ALOT if the northern part of Iraq, is not feasible under our current administration.

I see Iraq and I feel we are going down the same route we did with Egypt and Libya where our strikes and actions helped the Muslim Brotherhood remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists.

Bottom line is I think the policy of the current President has let it deteriorate to an extent where there is no way to win. It's either by design or negligence, but its at the stage where, our only option is to close the Embassy and wait it out. Maybe in a few years we will have a leader that can engage in foreign policy, both in word and deed that will be able to work these things out, but for now, we'd be stupid to put our finest in harms way in Iraq, where the administration won't support them and won't let them do their job.

Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home before our Wonderous Leader repeats Banghazi again, this time with 100s dead instead of 3 or 4.

"Hey I lost friends there too" God bless you and them.

"Policy changed under Obama, he pulled everyone out"

To be fair to Obama, the timeline for withdraw that he followed, I believe, was put in place by Bush. But Obama executed it, and he did that despite many experts suggesting that he was opening the door for exactly what is happening.

"remove one bad guy and replace it with a mess of crap breeding ground for more terrorists."

But after the Surge, there were free elections, and the people who voted, didn't elect hard-liners to any position that mattered. Moderates were winning everywhere. It looked like it was on the right track. But as you aid, at some point we need to turn it over to them. I just don't think we did it at a wise point in time.

"Close the Embassy bring the Embassador home "

But if the terrorists take over, they have a sovereign state. having access to a sovereign state (Afghanistan) led to 09/11. So isn't it in our vital interest to make sure that doesn't happen?

By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor? I mean, the architects of the war policy were wrong about so much, and we learned that they really didn't even have a good reason to think they were going to be right.

For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes) and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law.

A US troop presence would have also likely made the political situation worse and perhaps even accelerated a Sunni revolt pulling us back in even harder than today.

I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this other than more pressure on the Maliki government to be inclusive and more pressure on Russia to abandon Syria, neither of which was very feasible.

Ultimately we can't stay there forever. The World needs to buck up and realize this isn't America's problem alone.

-spence

"By that rationale shouldn't the very essence of the war be a great dishonor?"

Only if the premise for the war was unreasonable, and/or unjust. If we can be a little honest, we can admit that back then, a large majority from both parties supported the war. I think one could have made a compelling case, even back then, that we could have waited. But many, many reasonable and decent people supported this war. Not just Bush. Many people forget that Hilary voted for the war, and said she was certain Iraq had WMDs, why does she get a pass?

"For the US to have kept troops after 2011 we likely would have to made serious concessions (i.e. bribes)"

Big whoop. Better to spend a few bucks to help prevent another 09/11, isn't it?

"and for sure allowed US servicemen and women to be bound by Iraqi law"

Not "for sure". We work around that all the time, and if Obama was half the world statesman that people like you claimed that he would be, that would have been an easy deal for him to make.

"I'm not sure what we could have done to prevent this "

Ever heard of the Surge? Things like this don't usually happen where the US Marines happen to be.

"Ultimately we can't stay there forever"

we stayed in Germany and Korea for a long, long time, and those places were a lot more stable, and a lot less likely to be the birthplace for mass attacks against US civilians.

It's a different world Spence, there are unspeakably vicious people in that part of the region. We can choose to face that, or we can choose to pretend that's not the case. If we take the former position, that means a lot of troops in a lot of places, in the attempt to prevent terrorism. If we choose the later, it means giving the terrorists a better chance of killing Americans before we go after them. Either way, in the end, we will face them. The question I, do we do it before, or after, they strike. I'd choose former. You and your hero apparently disagree.

I don't get it. You cannot wish these people away, no matter how hard you try. We now know, after this failed experiment, that electing a President who takes a softer approach with them, doesn't wo