“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
Yes, my feelings haven't changed. We never should have been in the region to begin with. We shouldn't be there now. There is not one unified understanding of why went there or why we stay there. It has become such a mind numbing cluster**** that we now are engaged in a "war against war". A bit like what "your definition of is is".
Reminds of the old protect banner, "fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity".
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
If you think it will result in the elite waging war more carefully, you're wrong. They will still be able to keep their kids away from the front lines, draft or no.
Perhaps we should return to the model in which the king and his noblemen led the troops into battle. I bet Congress and the executive branch would become absolute peaceniks if that was the case.
Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy
You are correct in that this region of the world has been in some degree of conflict that predates even the concept of monotheism, let alone Islam that by design does not want or allow for ideological competition. Even with the splintering of that faith the result is more of the same, pockets of ideology that cannot get along with one another. It explains well everything from Libya to Egypt to Syria to Iraq and so many others that cannot function with groups of competition ideology trying to negotiate. It is all based upon a faith that does not allow for negotiation. That then makes good sense as to why western governmental and sociological philosophies do not work over there in any long term. Note what was put in place in Iraq and how quickly that resulted in failure. I suspect Afghanistan is not that far behind in experiencing some degree of set back in dealing with what all is left of their competition ideologies (and there are many, it is not just the Taliban.) Representative governments tend to fail over there, and what seems to be the norm suggest aptitude for military and/or religious dictatorships. Seriously, they are all reading a book with a baked into the text mechanism of societal control and "religious authority."
So, rather hypocritically we support those dictatorships that benefit us in some way then point the finger at others spending lives and dollars in a confusing effort to tell everyone over there how they should live and under what system of government. We can then tell from history all the way to current, that it tends to fail in spectacular manner. What is bred, and rather well, is contempt for Western governments in interference in everyone else's lives. And speak of, more often than not we worked with people we later determine are problems. We tried to work openly with Saddam before calling him a problem, and don't get me started on our position during the Iran / Iraq war. Similar story with those that made up the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan when fighting the Russians, and what they later became under terrorist organization names.
It has always been a mess over there but I would argue more often than not our interventionism has made matters worse, and as such placed us in even more danger the further we go along. It is an odd position for us to be in but we seemed to have upset (or at least are not trusted) by a good 1/2 the planet as of today. How can that possibly be defined as good policy?
If, when defending your support for Donald Trump, and your response is,
"But but but... HILLARY!!!", then you lost the argument before you even began.