[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

I'm tired and not turning the computer back on (too slow on tablet). The last paragraph... troops in Iraq for how long? Forever? Plus Libya and Syria. No thanks.