Does sticking a band aid on a bullet wound improve a bad situation or make it worse? C'mon "libertarian", the only way to fix the problem is long term. Keeping the US military band aid in place and continuing to sacrifice trillions of dollars and thousands of lives for no real, long-term purpose is the height of short-sighted stupidity exhibited so well by our previous administration.
The
only way the neocon policy works is to keep a residual force of at least 20k in Iraq
for good. Fck that.
Well, you should of course know the one word that any knowledgeable observer is going to use as a response to your reply. Korea! We have been in Korea since I was just finishing 2nd grade. We have actually lost a number (small though it may be) of soldiers killed in Korea since then, plus having spent many billions of taxpayer dollars.
Has all that been worth it? South Korea is a thriving, democratic country with which we enjoy very friendly relations. North Korea, on the other hand, is a certifiable hell on earth lead by a hereditary monarchy of crazies. Oh, yes; Koreans are a couple of inches taller on average than the slaves struggling to keep food on the table in the Workers Paradise in North Korea. I might also add that we still have troops in Europe. Has it been worthwhile to maintain that force, first against the Soviet Union (which without our forces remaining there almost surely would have found an excuse to conquer the rest of Germany, plus France and other countries) and now Russia? Yes, I think it has been.
Of course, the Middle East is a much different situation. Still, 20,000 U.S. troops plus strong air assets based in Iraq probably would have been a firewall against ISIS. As has been said by pundits with credentials greater than mine, two huge mistakes were made by America in Iraq. First was invading at all and/or (this one is more controversial) not preparing more intelligently for the post invasion period. The second blunder was withdrawing all forces when military experts were warning the administration that such an action would have disastrous consequences.
If we were talking about a conflict among various factions located in Antarctica, we probably could justifiably remain aloof. We would have to deal with our consciences if such a conflict involved the literal murder of tens of thousands of men, women, and children, but from a
realpolitik perspective, why would we want to intervene?
To hell with both sides might make sense.
But the Middle East is not Antarctica. What happens there, for a number of reasons, is of importance to us.
National leadership involves dealing as effectively as possible with problems that have consequences for the nation. Complaining that those who held power before caused the problems does not fulfill the role I just described.
If I buy a house and discover that significant damage (through neglect or deliberate vandalism) has been done to parts of that house by the previous owner, I must take action. Maybe I can sue the previous owner. Or I can pay for repairs myself if no lawsuit is feasible. But one thing is clear; doing nothing, or worse yet, compounding the damage through unwise activities, while as the same time proclaiming to one and all how terrible the previous owner was, is both useless and irresponsible.
Blame George Bush all you want; such a claim is by no means frivolous. You can also say, with reason, that Barack Obama inherited a bad situation. (However, we should keep in mind that both he and the VP declared in 2010 that Iraq was going to be one of the shining achievements of the current administration.) George Bush made a big mistake. Okay, that's a defensible proposition. At the same time, it is equally reasonable to claim that Barack Obama has exacerbated the bad situation that existed when he took office.
(But even that is not quite correct. When BHO took office in 2009, the bad situation the arose following the textbook invasion of Iraq had largely been rectified. Why else would BHO and JB have bragged about the status of Iraq that they claimed lead them to withdraw all troops? There is plenty of blame to go around, starting with the conflict over who would succeed Muhammad in 632 AD. Unlike the Christians, who were as bloody-minded during their Catholic versus Protestant conflicts in the 15th and 16th Centuries as are the extremist Muslims of today, Islam has never had a Reformation and reconciliation. In that sense, Muslims are stuck in a mindset that goes back about 1400 years. And they are a few hundred years behind the Christians in deciding that living in peace with those who hold different religious views is better than continual fighting.)
AzWm