Is Trump making the same mistake as past presidents have by declaring victory too early over ISIS?

@SW-User He’s ordered a full withdrawal.

Then, that sounds like a positive development. @QuixoticSoul

@SW-User I think so too. But then again - I thought we should have stayed out of that mess from the very beginning. Assad is better that anything that would have replaced him over there.

There appear to be no good options in that region. The only constant seems to be that our interference/intervention usually backfires sooner or later with the possible exception of the conflict in ‘90-‘91 where the focus was narrow with clear objectives and a clearly defined end point. @QuixoticSoul

@SW-User the only reason is backfires is because we make stupid mistakes, like with Iraq, we essentially abandoned them after we removed Saddam, then we have the Taliban which is another issue entirely.

But without our interventions the Middle-East would be a much bloodier territory to what it is now.

Iraq backfired, because it was a horrible idea from the onset. It became the quagmire that Bush 41 wisely decided to avoid in ‘91. @PikachuTrainer

@SW-User it backfired not because it was a horrible idea from the onset, but because we didn't have the resources at the time to help rebuild their nation once we began to invade, then abandoned them when they needed the help which helped ISIS gain a lot of territory in Iraq in the first place.

Not having a clear plan and exit strategy after toppling the Iraqi government makes it the very definition of a horrible idea as I would define it. I have yet to see the point of initiating a war with a nation that hadn’t attacked us under the ruse that was presented as justification. I cannot think of any facet of the Iraqi invasion and aftermath that wasn’t a squandering of blood and treasure. We may have differing definitions of what constitutes a horrible idea, because the U.S. folly in Iraq checks every box by my definition. @PikachuTrainer

@PikachuTrainer Dude, we positively set the Middle East on fire - no, it wouldn’t be bloodier without our intervention. It would be static, with far less death.

Remember, Iraq alone clocked in at almost a million dead civvies.

@QuixoticSoul you better brush up on your history mate, the middle east has always been a quagmire of death due to the warring Islamic factions and there would be far more death without our interventions.

@PikachuTrainer In this century - absolutely not, that’s pretty much impossible to argue. Hundreds of thousands less lives would have been lost if we simply stayed out.

It’s pretty tough to argue for the 20th too.