ColonelAngus
Diamond Member
- Feb 25, 2015
- 53,397
- 54,091
- 3,615
Surely the difference would be that Germany, Japan and Korea pay for the US to be there.And here everybody thought Obama didn't care...
So he's been careful, strategic and focused with the Iraqi military and our military in order to kick ISIS ass and what? Righties wanted "shock and awe" instead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/17/w...hints-of-resistance-as-battle-nears.html?_r=0
If he would have left a security force like we have in Germany, Japan, and Korea (50,000, 40,000, and 30,000 troops respectively) there would not be a need for a "surge" and tens of thousands of people would still be alive. Those wars ended about 70 years ago, but we still have a large number of troops there.
Politics shouldn't run a war. Once you are in the war, you do what needs to be done. Sticking to an arbitrary deadline that anyone imposed is stupid.
If they'd stayed in Iraq without invitation then wouldn't they have been an occupying force?
The actions of the security forces dictate whether they are occupying forces. If they allow the residents to maintain their lawful lives and are only there to promote domestic tranquility, then they are not occupying.
It's like Nazis in Poland in 1939-1945. Those were occupying forces.
UN forces in Haiti during the overthrow of Aristide were security forces to help provide a less violent transition of government.