Was it being a neocon back in 2011 to say we should leave a residual force of 10,000 in Iraq? If so, lets pull out the 26,000 from South Korea, let’s pull the 20,000 from Okinawa, let’s pull the who knows how many thousands out of Europe.
If we had left a residual force of 10,000 in Iraq, there would be no rise in ISIS invading Iraq. Perhaps they rise, but they would stay in Syria. I agree that we didn’t have an interest in the Syrian civil war, but now that ISIS has been created and spilled over into Iraq, threatening our allies in Jordan, Egypt, etc.. we have an interest. Because of American ineptitude we now have interests in Syria because it is threatening to boil over and consume the whole peninsula and Northern Africa in flames.
A coherent foreign policy does not mean war. Unfortunately, this has gone so far out of control that the military option is increasingly becoming the only one. If we lead in this fight, we could have many coalition forces such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey etc.. doing a lot of the heavy lifting but we must lead, period....
No, I would have agreed to keeping troops in country, but that was then and this is now. Sending troops in today would be a neocon commitment since we have no foreign policy, much less a coherent one. The current administration and its pentagon toadies will just continue the status quo: squander lives and money to no purpose.
I have a pretty good understanding about our military’s “success” here in the Middle East. I have been in the service since the 80s, and my son is a corpsman. He ships out this week, before I get home from my current deployment. We were supposed to meet in port and share a few beers before he leaves, but I got pushed back.
In my view it comes down to this: You want to tell my son to bury more of his friends why?