Skip to comments.America’s Middle East Dilemma
Posted on 06/19/2014 5:18:41 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
Toppling tyrants is ineffective in the long term without years of unpopular occupation.
Two and a half years ago, the U.S. pulled every soldier out of a mostly quiet Iraq. In the void thus created, formerly al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists calling themselves The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are now tearing apart the country, leaving medieval savagery in their wake.
Obama partisans are blaming the Bush administration for going into Iraq in the first place. But critics counter that Obama wanted out of Iraq before the 2012 election at all costs. The result of that reckless skedaddle is that we have thrown away the hard work of the 200708 surge that finally broke the back of both al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed Shiite terrorists. (snip)
Americans have a choice. They can learn to keep clear of these quagmires and accept that hundreds of thousands will frequently die in the Middle East and occasionally some Americans as well. Or, if we tire of watching the violence and intervene after a 9/11-like attack, we should brace for a bloody mess that will take years of unpopular occupation.
So for now we will blame each other for the ensuing savagery and vow to let the Middle East be the Middle East at least until the next time Islamic terrorists slaughter our diplomats, blow up an embassy, take down an airplane, or topple a New York skyscraper.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
VDH ping ...
"No, you won't find the words "Benghazi", "MANPADs", or "Jordan"
in this piece which protects Obama and Clinton and the RINOs."
America cannot win any Military War with Taliban-Friendly Obama as Commander in Chief.
Trying to remember. When George W Bush first announced the incursion into Iraq, did he communicate to the American people that "we should brace for a bloody mess that will take years of unpopular occupation"?
I had exactly this conversation with a guy at the bus stop this morning.
It’s Obama’s “Saigon, 1975”.