[x-factor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

When Congress says "OUT" they may mean completely. No US troops remaining. How many US military personnel remained in VN after 1973? And internal CT ops are the province of the Iraqi government, not us.

Every democratic withdrawal plan thats been floated has a disclaimer about leaving special ops in or near Iraq to conduct CT and the Vietnman comparison isn't really valid here. As for the Iraqi government and CT ops, its not likely that they'd block any actions against Al Qaeda elements.

Do you really think...

I don't really think any of this (well 95% of it, anyway). I'm just helping you guys get a workout.

The Iraqi Army is proving to be of limited value, not sure that they can stand against jihadis, insurgents, and foreign troops after we leave. How did the ARVNs do after we left, with many more years of training, equipping, and support?

The ARVN were doing alright until we pulled their funding and air support. That puts us back at the question of "complete withdrawal" vs "withdrawal of major combat troops".

IIRC, Nasser was a ruthless dictator and was able to hold the people together by stringent control measures, threats, and intimidation.

This is true (certainly thats how he dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood), but he also had a wide measure of genuine popular support until his armies got waxed by the Israelis.

Make sure that your assumptions are viable and realistic before making them. IMHO, flawed, overly optimistic assumptions are how we got to where we are in Iraq today.

The real me says: Nail on the head here.

The RED CELL says: Are your assumptions that Iraq will fall into the mega-Lebanon scenario and eventually sprout an extremist government any more realistic? What about your assumption that continued US presence has hope of improving the situation?