Replies

Thank you for the rational and cogent argument.

To me one big con is that the Middle East, with its long and troubled history and its divisive tribalism, seems to defy peaceful solutions or attempts at stability. Plus having a sizeable contingent of U.S. forces there could actually increase the possibility of war. All it takes is one mistake.

I understand that peace has a price but I’m not sure its attainable in the ME. It appears that congress feels the same way as they refuse to formally commit to supporting our involvement there.

That said, I could agree that a residual force may be justifiable. But even if Trump pulls out its likely that some of our special forces will quietly remain there in any case.

I was going to follow up, yes again, regarding intractable situations. That may indeed be the case, but the troops that were on the ground doing the mission seemed to be of the opinion that they were doing something of value, and I have to give them some cred in that regard. They are the ones that are in the battle.

I appreciate very much that Trump has changed the dynamics of politics that we have followed for the last half century. Many old strategies were bogged down or not working (NK i.e.). But I also respect the opinions of the warriors who have been there or are leading the troops. MANY now have advised the president against this particular course of action, some have even resigned over it. While some are politically motivated, I wince at the calls here on a conservative forum that anyone who warns of the downside of withdrawal is a "Globalist" or "Neocon" or part of the "Military Industrial Complex". Screaming at good people who dedicated their lives to their chosen profession as warriors like they are part of a conspiracy is not helpful or civil. Healthy debate with reasoned argument is fine, though.

Oh, and before I forget, yes, Congress is supposed to be able to declare war....but Congress has shown itself over the last 40 years now to be a feckless, self serving group that wants to take positions of no responsibility, abrogating its duties to the executive when there is risk of any downside, and then the first to scream, yell, and point fingers when things go bad (or even if they don't in many cases). So yeah, technically, constitutionally, Congress should be the ones to legally declare military action, but they don't in practice and haven't for decades.