The US is still committing troops to war in Iraq despite having no clear goal and obviously being defeated in the country.
Noting that the US still has over 3000 troops in Iraq in an analysis for the Center for the Stateless Society (C4SS), antistatist writer Nick Ford had the following commentary:
Does it sound like war has ended in Iraq for the US military? Does it sound like the taxpayer is all of the sudden not going to have their money stolen to benefit the military-industrial complex? Does it sound like, in such a war torn country (thanks in no small part to the US), that these new 450 soldiers will really have much of a choice in whether they’re combat troops or not?
I am also unsure how it could even be tracked whether these troops stay in their “adviser” role. Maybe some decide to go off and shoot some folks anyways. How would we know? Or maybe there will be some who are de facto turned into ground troops because of the unpredictability of war torn countries. There are many questions about unaccountability that need to be answered.
To top it off, the National Journal points out that this announcement comes only two daysafter Obama admitted that he has no “complete strategy” for training Iraqi forces in fighting ISIS. So why are more troops being sent in?
To conclude, Ford also wrote, "Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is much more qualified than I, has also gone on record saying that there is “no clear U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria.” Which, again, begs the question, what does Obama think he’s accomplishing by sending even more people to Iraq."