I'm not against it, but I'm also against a long-term commitment there. I think all of our troops should be out by the end of the decade. That would give Iraq more than enough time to stabilize and our forces to kill as many terrorists as possible.
There's always going to be terrorists, dirtboy, regardless if we leave immediately or we stay until the year 3000.
The Brits had a philosophy about Western Europe - keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out.
And now the Middle East is becoming the focal point of the global economy - Dubai, UAE, the Saudis - with all the petrodollars pouring in. This is not just about killing terrorists, but keeping a military presence in the region keeps regimes nervous.
And EEE, you're the exception - you disagree with Paul's stance on the war. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, Paul's anti-war stance is his main selling point to the bulk of his supporters - his support is higher than historical libertarian baselines.