The New York Times Article: LINK
As some of you might have heard, President Obama has set out a new plan to use ground forces to combat ISIL. However, according to the president, the resolution would be limited in time (three years) and scope (limited engagement), that it would appeal to both the Republican Party (pro-intervention) and the Democratic Party (non-interventionist), despite that some members of both parties share concerns about opening up another war.
Also I don't know what Iraq WarIII or Iraq War IV will be fought over but I do know how Iraq War V will start: Find our president's head!
I really wanted to use that.
So we're returning back to Iraq, a major mess thanks to the incompetence of the Bush Administration as well as some of our top general's handling of the war effort, but also, somewhat Obama's fault for leaving so early when stability was needed in the region.
Personally, another military adventure in the Middle East is not desirable. Although we have the most powerful military in the world, the political will to keep a counterinsurgency alive and well is impossible. And although the president has set it to three years, this will go on to the next administration and depending on who's elected, either the next president will keep that promise, extend the timeline with those restrictions, or expand the war. Vietnam is a perfect example of escalation from advising to full on war.
So what do you all think?
Log in to comment