Critis of leaving Iraq--like me--aren't saying that US troops should be on the ground, fighting in Fallujah. I'd say so if I thought it was the case. But Carney clearly hasn't heard anyone say that. So he argues against a proposal that isn't there as if it was the deeply held wish of critics.
While Carney ably tackled this straw man, he doesn't get it:
White House spokesman Jay Carney says the violence existed even when there were 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Carney says if critics think there should be U.S. troops on the ground in Fallujah, they should say so. He says President Barack Obama doesn't believe they should.
The point of arguing that we should have remained in Iraq is that the presence of American troops in Iraq would have had positive impacts in a training role and as the foundation for other non-military efforts to strengthen the Iraqi state.
Our presence (a tangible sign of our interest) would have assisted Iraq in resisting Iranian pressure, reassured factions in Iraq that rule of law was the goal rather than encoraging the use of force or bribery to allocate resources, and denied Iran the ability to supply Assad through Iraqi territory and air space which turned Syria into the rear area for al Qaeda in Iraq.
These factors would have prevented al Qaeda from seizing Falujah (and Ramadi) in the first place and made it more likely that Iraqis would have remained united enough to fully defeat al Qaeda, which was on the ropes at the end of 2011 and a dwingling threat.
If Carney is just lying, he just remains a revolting spectacle of a man. If his briefings by foreign policy experts are truly so poor as to make him believe the choice in 2011 was to remain in combat forever in Iraq or leave completely, he needs new briefers.
We screwed up by leaving Iraq prematurely in 2011. The proof is waving their black flag over Ramadi and Fallujah this morning.
