The funny thing about all this is that the very people who are gonna be crowing from the rooftops supporting Trump's pullout were the selfsame people who were all gung ho about going into places like Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.
Not me.
In the first place, "15 Saudis, an Egyptian and a couple of guys from the Gulf attacked us. We invade... Iraq!" makes no fucking sense at all. "Hitler has invaded Poland. We declare war on... France!" If bombs fell on any country, it should have been Saudi Arabia. Yes, the blowback would have been insane and it would have been a clusterfuck, a shutdown of supply of 40% of the world's traded oil through the Gulf, a global recession and millions of dead as everyone went all-in. But it at least would have made sense.
The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden to an international tribunal to be tried under Sharia law in Pakistan. This would have been less than ideal, but intelligently-handled could have been a good way to bring the US together with Islamic countries. I thought that was a better idea than invading.
And then when the invasion happened the Taliban offered peace, a power-sharing arrangement with the other factions. Since it was plain they'd never be completely eliminated, it was likewise obvious that this would be the eventual peace deal, whether after 5 years or 50. The US turned this down. Now the US is negotiating with the Taliban for a power-sharing arrangement with other factions... but the Taliban won't deal with the corrupt clowns in Kabul, they have enough corrupt clowns of their own.
I was also concerned that a conflict in Afghanistan could spill over into neighbouring countries, I was particularly worried about Pakistan as it's a nuclear state. And indeed it has spilled over there, though luckily not much into the other stans around Afghanistan.
The invasion of Iraq I was against from the start. Saddam was mostly complying with foreign inspections, just putting up some token resistance for domestic political reasons, and a decade of sanctions meant he wouldn't have the materials for much in the way of WMD anyway. And even when he had Western support to build things, they still came out crap, like the Scuds landing miles off target, it was the worst kind of weapon, one that pisses everyone off but does no militarily significant damage. As for Saddam supporting Al Qaeda... no. He was a secular dictator, and had eliminated Islamic radicalism in Iraq with all the force of crimes against humanity.
So there was no reason to invade Iraq. It was a war of aggression. And it was obvious that without a unifying leader - whether unifying by common respect, like a good constitutional monarch, or unifying by violence, like Saddam - Iraq would fall apart into sectarian conflict.
Likewise, I did not support NATO backstabbing Gaddafi and supporting the rebels there. That country's still in civil war, by the way, everyone seems to have forgotten about that particular clusterfuck. Everyone except North Korea, of course, who from that learned the useful lesson also taught them by the Iraq experience: if you have WMD, don't give them up, because your country will end up in civil war and the leader dead in a ditch.
Nor yet have I supported the US-supported war in Yemen, still less the war in Syria. And I don't support Australia's special forces being in the Philippines working to knock over the Islamic rebels there.
There are some other conflicts but I think I have made my point: no, I was always against these conflicts. Yes, it would be better if they were ended. But the US has not shown it is able to do this productively. So the arsonist should just walk away from the burning building and leave others to it.
The real argument for staying is the sunk cost fallacy. Walk away from the blackjack table, you're spending the mortgage.
This is nuts. All the right-wing fruit loops who wanted to nuke the world 17 years ago are now banging on about Trump the peacemaker. And all the left-wing fruit loops who were out protesting the wars years ago are now saying Trump is Neville Chamberlain, or Quisling or something. Look, get over your love-boner or hate-boner for Trump, and consider: what is good for the US, and what is good for the world?
If you decide that continuing these wars is good for the world, then decide what price you are willing to pay. So far the cost is,
- 17 years and 2 months of conflict
- 3 million dead (I updated this, including the side conflicts and the indirect deaths)
- $1 trillion cost to the US alone - this is ignoring, how much would it cost to bring Iraq back to where it was? Syria?
If you think it's worth fighting on, please express exactly how many years, lives and dollars you're willing to spend. If we don't walk away now, then when?
Unlike most of those posting these comments, I have felt the weight of a pack on my back, and I have lost someone close to me in a terrorist incident. So when I say we should or should not remain at war, I have some idea of what we are asking of our soldiers, and I have some skin in the "preventing terrorism" game.
If Trump is wrong and we should not pull out, then exactly when should we pull out? How many years, lives and dollars would you be willing to spend? Would this change if the years, lives and dollars were yours?
Given the focus of this forum is FIRE, who among you would give up your FIRE and work until death so we could afford to keep fighting these wars? You who so blithely saying we should fight on, who among you has sacrificed or would sacrifice anything for it? Apart from simply reflexively rejecting anything the Oompah Loompah says, is this simply the bravery of being out of range?