I mean, right now? Iraq.
Not Iran.
Iraq.
Consider the conditions in Iraq as they are -- those we caused by removing Saddam from power, and those we didn't cause. For a few moments, completely forget our obligation to fix what we broke and concentrate only on our ability to fix what is broken in Iraq. If it helps, look at an alternate Iraq where Saddam and his evil sons were overthrown by the Shiite majority and the Kurds -- both completely without the direct help of the United States of America. What problems would exist?
Same problems as now, minus US Soldiers getting killed. In fact, Iraq's internal problems might be worse if we weren't the ones who removed Saddam from power. I can accept as a valid argument that they would be (not agree but accept the validity of the argument). Could we help solve those problems by putting U.S. Troops on the ground there? Not would we, because I think it's pretty obvious we wouldn't. Could we? Would it be a worthwhile endeavor, absent all neocon-ish motivations? Would U.S. ground troops help?
Or would U.S. ground troops, now, make things worse?
I'm not asking about military aid or other financial aid. I'm not asking about support (military or otherwise) as part of a UN operation.
Very simply, if invading wouldn't help now, right now, then neither will continuing our present occupation. Other forms of help? Could be. U.S. troops on the ground, no.
This isn't just a conceptual exercise. When you ask the question, "would invasion, now, help?" you take away the whole Pottery Barn Rule argument. Because regardless of whether we broke it or not, we need to fix it, not break it some more.
Maybe an invasion by U.S. ground troops, armor, helecopters and other assorted war assets would help solve Iraq's problems now. Right now. I'm open to that point of view.
Don't bitch about my tags. I hate tags. I think they're ridiculous. Change them or add to them. Whatever.