- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 43,660
- Reaction score
- 10,966
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What we are trying to tell you is that an occupation of Iraq until "capable of protecting it's own sovereignty" seems more like the South Korea model, which has been indefinite vs. some 5 or 10 or 15 year plan. The government installed was weak, their military was even weaker. The elephant in the room here is we left behind the very people that became ISIS, became the enemy of the government we supported, and there is no real certainty at all that a "small contingent" (whatever that means) would have prevented ISIS from spilling over from Syria into Iraq.
And the last thing you should be doing is mentioning "common sense" in any regard with our foreign policy for the greater Middle East going back several decades now.
The elephant in the room in regards to Korea is that for all practical purposes, it was a United Nations operation. Like Vietnam.......what happened on the battlefield mattered less then what was going on in constipated peace talks. Wars should be won or lost on the battlefield. I do not buy the Korea comparison. And yes...a small contingent supported by air power would have prevented ISIS getting a foothold in Iraq. A quick and devastating response at the beginning of ISIS surging into Iraq would have contained them in Syria.