Looking at Iraq, I'd say it doesn't make a lot of difference. US involvement hasn't got a great record in resolving civil wars, now does it?
Well, civil wars tend to spring up because there is an intractable dispute that does not lend itself to a win-win solution between two hostile and suspicious groups, neither of which trust a central power to deal fairly with the issue. Nobody has a great record with that.
But if you really look at Iraq today and Syria today and see no difference you may want to check your eyesight - you may be coming down with a severe case of myopartisania, which can severely distort incoming signals.
That being said, a Syria with U.S. intervention would have looked more like a Libya than an Iraq. Agreeably, nowhere you'd want to raise a family - but certainly better than where we are now.
You seem to think that provided it isn't still in full-scale civil war mode, Iraq must be a success story.
No, not so much as any country can ever be a "success story". We all contain within ourselves the seeds of our own destruction. Do you really have to create strawmen in order to defend your failed position?
Please note: the Allies have virtually pulled out of Iraq. It's supposed to be 'job done', yet it's still in a state of near-anarchy.
Hey, You'll get no argument from me that this administration pulled out
way too fast, did a crappy job of doing so, and forfeited much of our hard-won gains; and that it seems poised to do so in an even worse manner in Afghanistan. But you may want to head back to your history if you really want to describe Iraq at current as almost anarchy.
I've read hundreds of your posts over the years Will. Do you deny being a neo-con?
not at all - I think that our interests and our beliefs fairly roughly align over the long term. That's the Neo-Con argument: that since the United States is going to be involved in international affairs, it should at least do so in such a manner as to promote representative government and individual human rights.
But
propaganda is deliberate falsehood in order to sway a susceptible public. Neither are you susceptible nor I deceptive. Since you've read hundreds of my posts, you know that - I've never pretended to be anything other than what I am.
One attack? Are you being deliberately mendacious?
No, but if I was in a more accusatory mood I might point out that you are being so - to bring up a single attack and then accuse the other person of limiting the discussion to a single attack when they reply to your original point is a poor attempt at bait-and-switch.
Civilian deaths are back up into the thousands per month. Not one incident but dozens. And this is a country we've supposedly put right, returned to democracy, reintroduced order. God help them if we set our sights on a lesser goal!
Iraq records highest monthly death toll in years | World news | theguardian.com
In years, eh? So you are deliberately taking an outlier data point and using as your base? Interesting.
That being said, we did reintroduce order and put things to right. And then our child-president decided to throw his base a bone by abandoning the (wise) strategy of withdrawing according to events on the ground in favor of withdrawing according to what polled well. And so Iraq is now worse off than it needed to have been, but still better than it was.
