Anyone using the term chickenhawk has no credibility. It is a patently stupid term that suggests that anyone who does not beat down the door at a recruiters office and demand to get into a war does not have a right to support a given military action.
Honestly, you are headed to ignore.
Originally Posted by Bucky
You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
Perhaps if you try a bit harder, you can get a point. If we had left a contingent of troops behind in Iraq, 10,000, perhaps 20,000, as we have done in most other wars where we have spilled so much blood, ISIS never would have gained a foothold. I really don't care whether you think we should have went into Iraq or not. Politicians make those choices. The point is that if we get into a war, especially one involving regime change, we should stick around long enough to make sure the military we leave behind can take care of business.
The Govt. Bush left in Iraq could not function without us and that is what you neocons are calling a victory? They not only could not function but they also hated us and would not even guarantee that our soldiers would not be prosecuted in Iraqi courts. We spent many years training the Iraqi military only to have Maliki turn it into a sectarian hit squad that would not fight in Sunni areas unless they were murdering Sunni's in their beds. At least now that Maliki is gone there are hopes of regaining the trust of the Sunni tribes that originally vanquished Al Qaeda from Iraq. They then regrouped in Syria and became ISIS.