3 ms·

That advice is what lead to ISIS in the first place, when the US withdrew from Iraq too early before it was stable enough.

nickik 10y ago
You seem to live under the assumption that everything would have been better with the US there. That is a fantasy world that some right wing people live in. First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible (maybe read something about the history of foreign military bases that were not wanted in Iraq). Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. Third, the US had done a horrible job of setting up the state and fixing that would have been almost impossible. "stable enough" could easily mean multiple decades or never. Britain has tried that as well. These problems were predicted by anybody who had a head on its shoulder in 2003. Invading Iraq was called the worst foreign policy failure since Vietnam by many important people form within the US government. Staying there even longer and spending even more money (long term strategic resources) on a essentially doomed nation building process. The US has already shown that they are absolutely terrible at nation building.
- mason240 10y ago
  >First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible The agreement was perused because the US government wanted to withdraw. I have no idea what you are trying to argue here (aside from circular logic). If the US didn't didn't withdraw ... it wouldn't have negotiated a withdrawl. >Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. This is false. >Third, the US had done a horrible job of setting up the state and fixing that would have been almost impossible. Also false. At any rate, it was the Iraqis that elected leaders to draft their constitution and developed their government. >Staying there even longer and spending even more money And the Syrian refugee crisis coupled with our current and future involvement in Syria is free? >The US has already shown that they are absolutely terrible at nation building. You mean aside from the successes in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and others, right?
  - nickik 10y ago
    The agreement was negotiated because of MASSIV pressure by Iraq leaders and the US not having the financials or the political support to stay. > This is false. Sure. If the US really wanted, it could have sustained 1 Million guys there for the next 20 years. This is however totally absurd from a cost benefit analysis and it has absolutely no support in the population, the congress, foreign policy community, budget bureaucrats and essentially everybody accept a tiny group of right wing warmongers. > Also false. At any rate, it was the Iraqis that elected leaders to draft their constitution and developed their government. Clearly you have never read any analysis of the Iraqi state. It was one of the most corrupt in the world. It was politically exclusive to large groups of the population. It was not at all democratic. The constitution was absolutely meaningless. > And the Syrian refugee crisis coupled with our current and future involvement in Syria is free? And the US saying in Iraq would not have prevented the problems that arose from the Arab Spring. If you believe that you live in a fantasy land that nobody can help you out of. Even if that were true, the action in Syria are much, much, MUCH cheaper then a decades long occupation with large ground forces. Maybe read up on the history of foreign occupation in Iraq to give you some estimations what would have happened. Also, the US is not forced to 'stay in Syria'. That another fantasy, some war mongers on both sides convince them selfs of.

nickik 10y ago

You seem to live under the assumption that everything would have been better with the US there. That is a fantasy world that some right wing people live in. First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible (maybe read something about the history of foreign military bases that were not wanted in Iraq). Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. Third, the US had done a horrible job of setting up the state and fixing that would have been almost impossible. "stable enough" could easily mean multiple decades or never. Britain has tried that as well. These problems were predicted by anybody who had a head on its shoulder in 2003. Invading Iraq was called the worst foreign policy failure since Vietnam by many important people form within the US government. Staying there even longer and spending even more money (long term strategic resources) on a essentially doomed nation building process. The US has already shown that they are absolutely terrible at nation building.

mason240 10y ago
>First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible The agreement was perused because the US government wanted to withdraw. I have no idea what you are trying to argue here (aside from circular logic). If the US didn't didn't withdraw ... it wouldn't have negotiated a withdrawl. >Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. This is false. >Third, the US had done a horrible job of setting up the state and fixing that would have been almost impossible. Also false. At any rate, it was the Iraqis that elected leaders to draft their constitution and developed their government. >Staying there even longer and spending even more money And the Syrian refugee crisis coupled with our current and future involvement in Syria is free? >The US has already shown that they are absolutely terrible at nation building. You mean aside from the successes in Europe, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and others, right?
- nickik 10y ago
  The agreement was negotiated because of MASSIV pressure by Iraq leaders and the US not having the financials or the political support to stay. > This is false. Sure. If the US really wanted, it could have sustained 1 Million guys there for the next 20 years. This is however totally absurd from a cost benefit analysis and it has absolutely no support in the population, the congress, foreign policy community, budget bureaucrats and essentially everybody accept a tiny group of right wing warmongers. > Also false. At any rate, it was the Iraqis that elected leaders to draft their constitution and developed their government. Clearly you have never read any analysis of the Iraqi state. It was one of the most corrupt in the world. It was politically exclusive to large groups of the population. It was not at all democratic. The constitution was absolutely meaningless. > And the Syrian refugee crisis coupled with our current and future involvement in Syria is free? And the US saying in Iraq would not have prevented the problems that arose from the Arab Spring. If you believe that you live in a fantasy land that nobody can help you out of. Even if that were true, the action in Syria are much, much, MUCH cheaper then a decades long occupation with large ground forces. Maybe read up on the history of foreign occupation in Iraq to give you some estimations what would have happened. Also, the US is not forced to 'stay in Syria'. That another fantasy, some war mongers on both sides convince them selfs of.