Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Here’s something I don’t get. Republicans seem to universally hold the following two opinions about Iraq and ISIS:
- President Obama is to blame for the military success of ISIS because he declined to keep a residual force in Iraq after 2011.
- In the fight against ISIS, we certainly don’t want to send in combat troops. No no no.
“Residual force” has become something of a talisman for conservative critics of Obama’s Iraq policy. It’s sort of like “providing arms,” the all-purpose suggestion for every conflict from hawks who know the public won’t stand for sending in ground troops but who want to support something more muscular than sanctions. It’s a wonderful sound bite because it sounds sensible and informed as long as you don’t think too hard about it (what arms? for whom? is anyone trained to use them? etc.). Luckily, most people don’t think too hard about it.
“Residual force” sounds good too. But if we don’t want boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS, what exactly would it have done? Hang around Baghdad to buck up the morale of the Iraqi forces that came fleeing back after encountering ISIS forces? Conduct ever more “training”? Or what? Can someone tell me just what everyone thinks this magical residual force would have accomplished?
Link:
A Wee Question About That Residual Force Everyone Keeps Blathering About
