And then those Kurds decide to use that land to launch military operations in Syria and Iran-what then? Well then Iran and Syria might expand the conflict. If this was easy to fix it would have been fixed.
1) Statement of opinion- Poster has a hard time looking past his own bizarre ideology...whatever it is.
2) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
3) Statement of delusion - Poster cannot differentiate between a metaphor and literal language.
4) Poster has lost the concept that the thread is about sacrificing human lives for oil.
5) Considering the posters treats his own opinions as facts without verification, he should be the first one to offer proof.
I'm not opposed to supporting Iraqi troops against ISIS, with limited ground presence. What I'm not seeing so far is any reason to believe that this time will work, when our last several efforts have failed.
I'd expect they will (again) fight until they can not longer advance their cause, and then they will withdraw until we leave again (even if it takes years,) and then reappear.
Does your plan include a counter for this?
When you ask why things will work this time-its important to note that the surge against insurgents in Iraq DID work. Our presence there DID work. Our withdrawal was based not on military success or failure but rather on politics. Obama ran on ending both wars, and he wants that to be his legacy, even if it means millions may die, and the US might be attacked again. Our mistake was leaving, frankly a minimal presence would have likely prevented this. The FSA, and ISIS were fighting in Syria and often withdrew to Iraq knowing Syria wouldnt follow, and that there were no longer americans there. This should have been squashed at that time-but again politics. Tragically the same scenario is being set up in Afghanistan currently-the intentional losing of a conflict for political purposes.
Frankly, long term the best option may be to keep a limited presence in both nations for an extended period-much like Europe and Japan post ww2.
To have fought these wars only to leave the region to an expanding terrorist state-which WILL result in the deaths of Americans, especially in the context of WHY we went to war after 9/11 would be insane. To leave it to our geopolitical adversaries Russia and Iran would be a disaster. It would undermine anything we have done or will do. There are politicians like Obama and Biden who were willing to lose these wars even back before the troop surge-and all for politics.
To leave that neighborhood in the state it is now in would be a disaster-not just now but long term.
How long are we prepared to babysit Iraq? Let's say we stay for 20 more years and keep the peace. What's to stop the (now thoroughly suppressed) jihadists from reemerging then?
right now, no one fights the hawks when they sign us up for a new war, because those of us who don't go don't have to pay anything. there's even somewhat of an incentive for war, because a major industry makes money from it. when troops are deployed, everyone should have to make a financial sacrifice. war should be completely economically unappealing, and this should provide an incentive to only use it as a last resort.
it's funny how the right forgets about fiscal responsibility when the discussion turns to war. **** that. no more unfunded wars. we should enact wartime tax rates every time we engage in a military action, and they should stay in place until the troops come home.
I see us staying there as proof that we actually care about the nations we go to war with. Its been said that the best thing to happen to some nations is to be militarily engaged with the US-because it means within a few decades they will have a much improved life and we will buy their cars. We should fight to help those that we have left there.