I hesitate to jump into this thread as it seems like running into friendly fire.
I don’t really know much about Crenshaw, but I have to agree with the ‘fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here’ approach. Now, does that mean we need to stay in every hellhole out there? No. But we also cant shrink back to our own coast line and expect that bad things wont result.
Trump is right to question our presence in Syria, and to ask what we really are trying to accomplish. But, as an example, you don’t see him saying lets pull out of the ME completely.
It would be good to have a national discussion about what the end state should really look like from 60,000 feet. Is Saudi Arabia an ally? Is Iraq? Is Egypt? How do places like this play in a road map for future anti-terrorist operations?
The problem is we don’t have that discussion in public because a) security concerns, b) politics, and c) the public attention span is mostly too short (as witnessed even here on FR). No, it has to get dumbed down for the public. We are either Globalists or we are isolationist (/sarc). Everything isn’t black or white.
ok. Flame on.
Good point. I'd add: (d) Many people in our government have been financially backed by foreign interests all over the Middle East for years.
Do you think it's just a coincidence that over the last 25 years, the U.S. has been involved in so many military campaigns that benefit Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families that are real estate investment partners of the Bush family?