Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
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
Hybrid Mode
