Quote:
|
Originally Posted by x-factor
TS/TR - Even assuming your "mega Lebanon" (for shorthand) scenario comes to pass after a US withdrawal, our special operations forces will remain to conduct the CT mission and assure that no jihadist elements gain significant control of the state or of any large territory (ie Al Anbar). Furthermore, continued training/support to the secular elements, most importantly the Iraqi Army, will prevent the state from slipping fulling into jihadist control.
(All this RED work is making me hungry...I'm going to go get a sandwich. I'll post my own opinions eventually.)
|
I wouldn't count on that.
When Congress says "OUT" they may mean completely. No US troops remaining. How many US military personnel remained in VN after 1973? And internal CT ops are the province of the Iraqi government, not us.
Furthermore, when we cannot control the jihadis with over 100,000 troops in country supporting the HN forces, I am not sure that we will be able to prevent their taking over after we are gone. Do you really think that they are all going to go back to whatever they did before the conflict started? Or will they turn Iraq into a religious state and then export terrorism against us around the world?
The Iraqi Army is proving to be of limited value, not sure that they can stand against jihadis, insurgents, and foreign troops after we leave. How did the ARVNs do after we left, with many more years of training, equipping, and support?
IIRC, Nasser was a ruthless dictator and was able to hold the people together by stringent control measures, threats, and intimidation.
Make sure that your assumptions are viable and realistic before making them. IMHO, flawed, overly optimistic assumptions are how we got to where we are in Iraq today.
TR