Anyway, let's get this thread back on topic. The point is that the US tried to pull their troops out of Iraq far too soon. If you look at history, the US never pulls troops out of any area after a successful war. The US kept around 300,000 troops in Germany till the 90's and there are still about 100,000 troops there today. Same goes for Korea and Japan, there are still to this day tens of thousands of troops in those countries something like 28k in Korea and something like 50k in Japan. The ONLY country the US has ever abandoned completely was Vietnam and the current administration is doing their best to repeat that in Iraq and Afghanistan. Germany, South Korea, and Japan all are are pretty well off today and the reason is because we didn't abandon them, we stuck around to ensure peace and security for their people while they were building their countries back up.
Simple question: was Iraq a successful war? See? We really can't have this conversation until some mutual facts are established. correct?
I think the point is that we are doing out best to ensure that it won't be. We are following a flawed model attempting to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into another Vietnam rather than following the tried and true models used in South Korea, Germany, and Japan.
No, withdrawing troops from Iraq wasn't the stupidest thing about the war. Invading Iraq was. Until you people come to that realization there really isn't anything to talk about.
Whether you support or don't support the Iraq war, the one thing nobody supports is running the war poorly. There should be bipartisan agreement that Obama is ****ting the bed here.
Oh I see. So, until we bow down to your viewpoint on the past, we can do nothing together to try to plot the best course for the future. Got it.
You ready to commit to 50 years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who is going to pay for all that? I am unsure about this World Police thing Rocket River
You either do it right or you turn it into the next Vietnam. Again, we're still in Germany, Japan, Korea, Italy..... Who pays for that?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Obama now using a pitching wedge on Hole 15. RT <a href="https://twitter.com/PzFeed">@PzFeed</a> BREAKING NEWS: Baghdad airport is now under attack by ISIS rockets.</p>— jon gabriel (@exjon) <a href="https://twitter.com/exjon/statuses/478313753591959552">June 15, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Obama's triumphant speech in late 2011 in which he declared the war in Iraq over sure was a steaming pile of garbage, wasn't it? Exiting Iraq in the manner that he did was a purely naked political calculation, intended to win low information voters' votes. It was a decision that went against the top military commanders' recommendations -- which by the way were suppressed. We now see the predictable results of Obama's ineptitude in foreign policy matters -- chaos in Iraq, chaos in Ukraine, chaos in Syria. His foreign policy is more about reading applause lines from the teleprompter than it is about serious diplomacy or strategy. But hey, as Baghdad falls, I really hope Obama's round of golf today in Palm Springs was enjoyable.
Viet Nam should show you you don't 'control' a local populace from the outside the culture. And now they are a pretty successful, politically benign, economic ally. So I would take "another Viet Nam" ending for Iraq. Your other examples were of wars with total victory and common cultures. Their "occupations" have been about their shared interests in countering the influence of the Soviet Union. It's so much apples and oranges the examples aren't even the same fruit. Certainly the oil in Iraq is of strategic interest but it could be countered for the same monetary costs with energy efficiency investments, alternative energy investments and domestic production gains.... without all the death of American soldiers. Again, we have invest trillions in Iraq, so much off the books that your grandchildren will still be paying for it. And after all that, 10,000 hooligans can imperil the capital. How much money and how many American lives would you estimate it would take to stabilize the country? How does that cost/benefit analysis look?
Comparing Iraq troop levels to Germany or Japan is silly. We didn't leave troops there for 50 years to get shot at and killed every day.
Let's invade Iraq sounds like it's becoming a promising campaign narrative for our Republican bros. Smells like 2016 success to me!
Before we decided to tuck tail and run the US casualties were dropping off year by year and that trend would have continued had we settled in to permanent status. The irresponsible actions of the last year or two have reversed all of that progress making things MUCH more dangerous.
You prefer the strategy of "let's squander all of our veterans' hard work and let Iraq descend into chaos for a political talking point for Obama" laughable.
The same end as in Japan, the same end in Korea, the same end in Germany. Helping Iraq go from a disaster zone to a solid independent state. Provide security for them for long enough to where they can get fully established without the threat of the government being overthrown.
Fine dog, have it your way. Send in Pyle and the rest. Hope this time you have a good answer for the question once posed by a decorated war hero: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? #crickets #goodddnighttttexxx
amateurish logic and unimpressive diversion tactic, SamFisher. By your logic, the US is better off with Sharia law and radical Sunnis running Iraq. That's going to be great for the region's stability. What you cannot comprehend is regardless of the decision to go to war with Iraq over 10 years ago, you have to evaluate the circumstances today. If you're still arguing about the decision to go to war in Iraq, then all I have to say is: Spoiler THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN KERRY 2004 BAYBEEEEEE!!!
