Bush didn't "win" the war, but things were on the right track when he left office, hell they were even on the right track when Obama decided to continue Bush's policy overseas early in his presidency....then he decided to make political points by yanking everyone out prematurely and things went to hell.
Bullsh!t. Obama went by the agreement that the Bush administration negotiated with Iraq and pulled out of Afghanistan per his campaign promise. I get that you don't like Obama, but you're just making **** up.
Iraq's Shiite majority and specifically it's Shiite President are directly responsible by shutting out any Sunni representation within the civil system. When you deny representation you foment militancy. You might remember 1773? You guys act like the US controls politics in Iraq. Hell we barely influence it.
It's not about liking Obama or not liking Obama, pulling troops out too early was a mistake no matter who did it. If the Bush plan was to tuck tail and run then Obama shouldn't have followed it because it was the wrong thing to do and it has made a mess of the country all over again.
That's certainly debatable, but what's not debatable is that pulling troops out too early was a mistake. Even if going in the first place was a mistake, that doesn't justify making a bigger mistake of completely blundering the whole thing.
So Bobby, what's your budget in blood and gold? How long is President Bobby prepared to stay, how are you going to sell it to the people, what are you going to cut from budget the pay for it? How are you going to care for your wounded? Are you fine with posting another half a trillion on the deficit?
Doubling down on mistakes is a dumb strategy as well. Bottom line is that the previous administration **** the bed on Iraq and there was no easy way out without resurrecting Saddam Hussein. The American public has had it with that war and the idea that we'd stay there another 10 years is a non-starter. Thank god, or bog, that we are out of that country.
The only reason Iraq was not a complete mess before we got there is that they had a strongman tyrant as a leader. Unless we were planning on imposing such a strongman on Iraq, it was a completely wasted effort from the very moment we invaded. Given that we did so while trying to pacify another unwilling nation, the recipe for disaster was well underway starting in 2003. Trying to place more than a pittance of the blame on Obama is ignoring reality.
It was "completely blundered" from the very beginning, there was absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch, that could have been done once the invasion took place, the Sunnis were shut out of governing, and the existing Army was disbanded. That was the recipe for disaster and I credit Obama for getting us the f*** out of that disaster.
The American public is stupid....that shouldn't surprise anyone. When you start dictating policy by public opinion then you've already failed. Things were calming down in Iraq more every year and finally starting to give those people the peace and security they need to rebuild their country when we abandoned them....just like they always knew we'd do and now they are screwed. That's why trusting the US is such a bad idea in the first place, they don't have the will to see anything through.
Heh, see? More to my point, Americans will screw people over and abandon them and the public will think it's a great idea....
Yes, the American public is stupid, but sometimes we are correct. Getting out of Iraq was absolutely the correct thing to do. We could have stayed there until 2020 and the same thing would have happened the moment we left. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, either, as the critics of invading Iraq spelled all this out pretty clearly before the invasion.
You don't know that. If given peace and stability, a really strong nation could have risen. Just because 2 or 3 years of relative peace and stability wasn't enough to fix everything isn't a good reason to abandon them. Staying till 2020 might not have even been long enough honestly. There should have been a permanent US base where 150K or so troops would be stationed at all times. That would be enough to guarantee their safety and allow a young nation to grow, instead we ensured their failure.
Allowing another country to determine their own destiny isn't screwing them over, it is what we should have done in the first place and there is no good reason to spend more blood and treasure than we already have.
Even if they went with a smaller number, they could easily PCS 50k troops from Germany, 10k troops from Italy 20k troops from the UK, then just PCS 20k from garrison in US based units and you have 100k troops to keep in country along with setting up a really good vantage point in the middle east.
