Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
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
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
So, how much more money and troops do we need? Where does the money come from? Military industrial complex spending for debt/deficient control?
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.
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. |
There's no contradiction. The presence of US troops was stabilizing. Removing them too soon, was destructive. If you deny that, then presumably if Obama said that 2+2=7, you'd believe him.
"I think it ultimately kicked the can down the road. "
Al Queda in Iraq packed up and left, until we left. Then they came back, as ISIS.
"who set the end date, and remind me, the Iraqi government really begged us to stay, right?"
Bush made it clear that the end date should have been extended with a SOF agreement, right? Or wrong? Who made the decision to leave? Bush or Obama?
"but Iraq, in my opinion was a mistake from the beginning"
Maybe. But when your hero took over, it was stable, thanks to the Surge. He blew it. That's not really up for debate by anyone who isn't completely blinded by love for the man.
"Post-whatever time you want to leave your residual force there (lets say 10 years), would Iraq ultimately be more stable 10 years later?"
Why wouldn't it have stayed as stable as it was, thanks to the surge, if we left troops there? What do you base that presumption on? What evidence is there, that if the troops stayed, the stability would have crumbled? None. There is evidence that removing troops, was a disaster. Sorry if you don't like those facts.