Time to get out of Iraq as well as Syria?

U.S. airstrikes on Iranian-backed militia draw condemnation, retaliation threats in Iraq

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3a10be-2af0-11ea-bffe-020c88b3f120_story.html

Should we also get out of Iraq? It seems more logical than Syria. If we don't want to fight in the Mid-East why are we still fighting in Iraq.

Your thoughts?
If your Wapo is used up try a private window.

 

It is best to treat the cancer outside the body and not when the disease comes to your home.

 

I believe we should get out of Syria and Iraq.

We are only in those countries because ISIS had to be beaten back. We have done that as well as we can. It should now be up to indigenous forces in both countries to keep them down. And if there is ever a resurgence of ISIS, we can enable indigenous forces to defeat them once again using airstrikes launched from aircraft carriers or our base in Turkey.

So bring our ground troops home.

 

yes, it is a compelling, and somewhat confusing question

near as I can tell, the problem is that there are a virtually innumerable number of clear and present dangers from leaving.

otoh, if we stay (in theory) we are actively addressing those dangers. And therefore... in theory... danger could be less.

there are a few problems hidden in this analysis. The most obvious problem is that there is no foreseeable situation where the analysis will not continue to be true... and therefore no logical end to the adventure as long as one accepts that analysis.

Beyond that, it is not necessarily true that the “doing something“ approach will reduce risk as compared to the “stop doing something” (just get out) approach.

The fact is that we are equally clueless about what will happen whether we stay or we leave.... so we simply do not know what is the better choice.

Further, there will likely never be an optimal time to leave. So when ever we leave, it will certainly seem like a sub optimal decision.

basically, I think the situation is like Vietnam nam.... we left in dreadful mess, it could have and should have been done better. And yet, in the end, it worked out far better than expected. And, in retrospect... staying longer was certainly not the better option.

 

if that is the correct analogy... which it is not... because treating the cancer in someone else’s body confers zero protection against contracting cancer... it did not in Vietnam nam either

 

It is the correct analogy.
We are in 2020 not in the 70's .. You cannot compare global Islam jihadists to Vietnam.
Happy new year

 

Yes. And Afghanistan. Yesterday.

 

Iraqs neighbor is Iran, Iran helped crushing ISIS. USA helped creating ISIS. Iraq depends on good relations with Iran. USA comitted countless crimes in Iraq.

You may have to accept that people there dont cheer USA there

 

If we stay based on your concerns, we have no exit strategy, we stay there forever. Terrorists in the ME are not the biggest threat to us. The home grown disenchanted youth who become radicalized are a far bigger threat. The terrorists involved in 9/11 were not officially listed as terrorists, there was no way ground troops or bombing could have prevented it. IMO, it's best to let our intelligence forces do their thing. Then if we can't get our proxies in the region to act we can surgically strike the threat.

 

There has been retaliation

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/31/us-embassy-stormed-in-baghdad

The US would appear to believe non US lives are disposable and no doubt will be suggesting it is a terrorist thing for there to be a reaction to them killing people in a foreign country. I think the US policy makers believe non US people are sub human.

The US is after war when it should be working to save the planet.

 

We are not really concerned at all about lawful behavior, but the simple truth is we have no legal basis for being in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq.

We have no moral basis for being there either. We are and have been in violation of numerous international laws.

The entire war on terror is a hoax based on a hoax.

 

What have you lost in Iraq or Syria ?
You should have left there long time ago.

 

IMO, we should have stayed out of Vietnam and Iraq.
Now we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP.

 

Human government is an inherently criminal organization.
People who cheer on any government are suckers. Add that and I agree with the rest of your post.

 

Yes, but the Irakis are late; the Yankees have been in Irak a long time already.

 

I have heard that the U.S. has been stockpiling WMDs in the embassy and have refused to allow an Iraki inspection team on the premises to search for them. Protocol, as I understand it, is to storm/invade the embassy. Bravo Irak! It is your innings now!

 

that is right.

No cheers from here either.

 

Add to that Europe and Sri Lanka. It is not in the best interest of the USA to have standing armies in other countries.

Get the UN the hell out of the US, and the US the hell out of the UN, and NATO, and bring all the troops home.

 

correct.

From the very beginning.

And both based upon a mountain of lies.

 

Any government that wants our troops in their country should pay through the nose for them.
The UN is a parliament of tyrants, thieves and perverts.

"UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations quashed an investigation earlier this
year into whether U.N. police were directly involved in the enslavement of
Eastern European women in Bosnian brothels, according to U.N. officials and
internal documents."

"David Lamb, a former Philadelphia police officer who served as a U.N. human
rights investigator in Bosnia until April, said that in February he began to
look into allegations against six Romanian, Fijian and Pakistani officers
stationed in the town of Bijeljina.

The most serious charges, he said, were that two Romanian policemen had
recruited Romanian women, purchased false documents for them and then sold
the women to Bosnian brothel owners."
WASHINGTON POST, U.N. Halted Probe of Officers' Alleged Role in Sex Trafficking
Lack of Support From Above, in Field Impeded Investigators, By Colum Lynch,
Special to The Washington Post, Thursday, December 27, 2001.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ficking/2e2465f3-32b4-42ff-a8df-7a8108e4b9ee/

 

Yes. I don't agree with your order of withdrawal but yes, I agree.
But first, dismantle NATO: It is not in Europe's best interest to be saddled with US military on European soil and it is a ton of bricks luging US war-mongering into whatever country the US wants to be destroyed. Let the US do it on its' own.
Next: Send US troops home.
Then: I don't know what good the US leaving the UN would do. On the one hand, it is an advantage to the rest of the world to have a say in what the U.S. should be allowed to do and what the U.S. should be forbidden to do. On the other hand, the U.S. hasn't paid any heed to what the UN says anyway. The UN should either impose sanctions on the U.S. or toss the U.S. out of the UN forthwith.

 

You can't do that. The U.S. needs European soil more than Europeans need U.S. lazy and conniving warmongers anywhere near Europe. So please do charge Europe "through the nose" for U.S. presence and see how fast you get booted out of Europe.

 

The United States (and others) should get out of everything in the Middle East and Leave them all to kill each other. There is literally NOTHING good to be gained or even worth it over there. The nations do not like us (Just our stuff) and no matter who you try to help someone else wants you dead for even trying. In perhaps another hundred years they will lose the Allah fixation and be ready for something akin to peace.

 

We leave Iraq it will become Iranian controlled..

That said yes i think we should probably leave.

There will be good and bad consequences no mattet what we do. Might as well let our people come home.

 

Of course you can do that: no ticky, no washy. The no washy is best.

But just keep troops within US borders unless the USA is attacked.