Why didn't Truman just come out at the end of June, 1950, and say he expected U.S. troops to be in Korea for the foreseeable future? Maybe he was trying to deceive the American people. Or maybe he had no way to predict how events would play out.So, when the invasion was being discussed, back before the war, why didn't they just come out and say, "We expect to be in Iraq for the foreseeable future"?
With what predictable result? There was no reason to think Iraq would not have remained reasonably stable, as it was by the end of 2007, if a substantial U.S. force had been stationed there. What was predictable is that without any such force, chaos like we're seeing would result.The voters of this country were not ready to pour treasure and blood into a quagmire for decades to come, and the PNAC darned well knew it. They went ahead anyway, and with the predictable result.
It is because he is a weak, foolish President that he allowed things to go to Hell there. He is the one who withdrew all U.S. troops, contrary to what military leaders who had studied the problem had recommended. He then tried to cover his dereliction, as usual, by blaming President Bush, for negotiating an agreement that tied his hands. That is nonsense. Status-of-forces agreements can be renegotiated, and the U.S. could have insisted on keeping a residual force there. Various South Korean governments from time to time demanded the U.S. withdraw its forces, too, but the U.S. never felt the need to comply with those demands. This President withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq to pimp for votes, without giving a damn what mayhem it would set loose there. The invasion of jihadists from Syria, which he sat by for more than a year and did nothing to stop, is entirely his fault.Obama took the fall, as he was the one in charge when things went to Hell.