[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"The Surge undoubtedly worked in the short-term"

It worked until Obama fu**ed it all up by withdrawing. Yes or no?

"Do you feel the military could have sustained that level of effort there, and for how long?"

Yes. You leave a residual force to enforce stability until the Iraqia are sufficiently able to take care of themselves. What you don't do, is tell the enemy, especially this enemy, exactly when you are planning on leaving.

So, there is a contradiction here, as I see it, so the "the surge was working until Obama '#^&#^&#^&#^&ed it up" yet we just needed to leave a residual force? How much residual force? 10,000? 30,000? 100,000? For how long? Another 10 years? The surge was a short-term offensive, not a long-term plan.

This summed it up well for me, the surge bought us time, but I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...taL/story.html

I forget, who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?

I have been beyond clear here over the years; post 9/11; go into Afghanistan. That turned into a boondoggle once mission creep took over, but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Would that make Iraq any more stable? "

Why, specifically, would you doubt that? It was stable until we withdrew. So why would you presume that the stability would not have lasted if we were still there? Based on what? The empirical evidence suggests that as long as we were there, things were stable.

I was rushing and not clear. Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later? I don't believe so. As the article above summarizes and I agree, if the Iraqi's aren't willing to fight, we shouldn't be fighting for them

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Add to that sending ground-forces en masse to Libya and Syria?"

If the military isn't equipped to deal with the current state of the world, whose fault is that?

So, how much more money and troops do we need? Where does the money come from? Military industrial complex spending for debt/deficient control?

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'd also disagree that we were in Libya and Syria "en masse".

I also wasn't clear here either, as I am aware we did not go fully on the ground in either place. In your scenario, we'd be occupying Iraq with a residual force, PLUS going into Syria and Libya; Syria especially I see being on equal scale with Iraq if we were to put boots on the ground. I don't think it is in America's best interest to go into either place.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You certainly had your Neo-Con Wheaties this morning"

What I have this morning, is common sense and the ability to process what's going on right in front of my face. If liberals need special dietary supplements to be able to pull that off, maybe that says more about your side than it says about my side. The fact that I wish we had prevented the rise of ISIS when it was within our grasp, makes me a neocon? In other words, you conclude it's a character flaw to regret the loss of the thousands of victims of ISIS. Very compassionate of you.

This is why you end up on my ignore list at times, when you turn into an off the rails internet A-hole. I made a pretty innocuous comment (I thought) based on the face that McCain, Lindsey Graham or another GOP Hawk could have written this post, and you take it to be a 'character flaw' insult and that I am not compassionate to the lives being lost and the unbelievable crisis currently unfolding. Am I willing to trade thousands of young American lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria? Nope. Not a chance. Especially not without global support with proportional troops and costs from allies.