It is futile. It's a bit like stationing your hand in the middle of a swarm of bees.
You don't combat terrorism with an occupation. Putting hundreds of thousands of troops in the middle of the Islamic world doesn't lessen the threat of Islamic terrorism. It increases it. We are now a larger target than we were before 9/11.
Even if you're right that it's futile, that makes it just another futile government program. The nonstop shrill whining about this one is necessary... because?
You don't combat terrorism with an occupation.
I know some people have voiced the fight-terrorism view in this thread, but as for me, I don't really take the view that the direct purpose of the occupation is to "fight terrorism" per se (I do think it is part of the larger war that is usually called the "War On Terror"). The direct purpose of the occupation is to safeguard a democratic government. "Fighting terrorism" as such only comes into play because, if successful, we'll deny them a haven, as well as the moral/honor victory that would come from kicking us out.
But anyway, I guess I agree with you. However, that doesn't make the occupation a bad idea.
Not all things that "don't combat terrorism" as such are bad ideas. You could I suppose make an opportunity-cost argument, i.e. that having those soldiers "futilely" stationed in Iraq prevents us from using them to do such-and-such thing elsewhere that would actually better combat terrorism.
But what would that thing be? Where would you rather these soldiers be stationed, and to do what? Do tell.
Putting hundreds of thousands of troops in the middle of the Islamic world doesn't lessen the threat of Islamic terrorism. It increases it. We are now a larger target than we were before 9/11.
This is a bunch of hand-waving with no basis. Define "larger target"? Were we a "smaller" target before? how much "smaller"? is that "size" measured in feet? miles? How do you measure the size of a "threat"? or know whether it has "increased" or "decreased"? What's the objective basis for all these claims? There is none. You've decided to assert that Iraq has "increased the threat" because you thought that would make your argument more convincing; in other words, you made all this up.