US Combat Troops leaving Iraq.

The last US combat troops in Iraq have finally left with the remaining troops limited to an advisory or training capacity in assisting the local Iraqi police and army. The Second Gulf war is effectively over, although the work in Iraq still continues.

It has been 7 1/2 years since the invasion of Iraq took place and the world is a different place for it.

What are you thoughts on the Second Gulf War?

Did we do the right thing for the wrong reasons?

Did we stay too long or should we be staying longer?

Has it made the world a safer place or has it resulted in a growth of terrorism?

Then again, did it make any difference at all, other than the sad loss of life of the troops fighting?

I'm not sure if I'd even say we did the right thing. Have we improved the lives of Iraqi civilians at all? You can't force liberty on a people, so going in to take their ruler out is kind of a fuck up from the start.

I really worry about what's going to happen now, particularly to the foreigners still there. Just because the combat troops are leaving doesn't mean there aren't a ton of American (and other nationality) civilians in there doing support work. That worries me a bit.

It may have made the world a safer place by removing Sadam from power, though the sacrifice was making the region itself more dangerous. In the long run we'll see how much that spreads.

Sadam was a cunt but the war was a pointless war of aggression and a waste of lives, resources, etc.

Did we do the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I can't even give myself this comfort. I don't think that the invasion of Iraq was a right thing. I may be willing to grant good motives to many of the people involved, but I regret, now, that I didn't speak out more emphatically that the last thing we should do is divide our attention between Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that the division of effort there is a large part of the genesis for the renewed problems we're having in Afghanistan, now. And will mean that the effort, lives and money spent in both areas will be largely wasted.

Did we stay too long or should we be staying longer?

If we went in, at all, I think that the expectation should have been for a generational commitment. I think, having upset what stability there had been, we're likely compounding that error by leaving too soon, when there is still so little faith in the rule of law within Iraq. IMNSHO we've simply reset the conditions in Iraq to the situation post Ottoman Empire, leaving a weak government ripe for take over by a series of strongmen. Like Saddam Hussein.

Has it made the world a safer place or has it resulted in a growth of terrorism?

IMNSHO, it's done neither. I believe that most of the foreign support for the insurgents in Iraq would have been just as happy to support the Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, if we hadn't opened up Iraq. There may be some morale boost to being able to claim that they drove the US out of Iraq, but I'm not sure that's going to be increased above the effect of battling in Afghanistan might have been.

Then again, did it make any difference at all, other than the sad loss of life of the troops fighting?

The differences I see are almost all negative.

http://www2.wnct.com/news/2010/aug/0...als-ar-324285/

The XVIII Airborne Corps is the corps of the United States Army designed for rapid deployment anywhere in the world. It is referred to as "America's Contingency Corps" and is the Army's largest warfighting organization. As of 2004, it consists of approximately 88,000 soldiers in four divisions. Its headquarters are at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XVIII_A...United_States)