Awesome! They can ride the "Air Pirates of 9/11" rollercoaster! C'mon - use your brains. At a bare minimum - even if it happened, it would still be cheaper to go back into Iraq every 3 years than stay there. We lost what - 10x more soldiers since Baghdad fell than we did in the invasion? And spent how many more dollars? C'mon. When your house is infested with termites/roaches, you get an exterminator to bugbomb the place and kill 99% of the bugs. And then you get another few months/years before calling him again. You don't pull down the house, destroy everything, dig up the topsoil, drench the place with hydrochloric acid, then build anew, now do ya? Any guesses why?
But to prevent this from happening how many troops do we need there? Can we get by with 50,000, 75,000, 100,000.
If it was a "terrorist Euro Dysnyland", then it wouldn't be so bad. One good thing about going out and coming back in is that there should only be one force to fight instead of a half-dozen different forces all requiring contradictory tactics. One bad thing about going out and coming back in is that there should be only one force to fight. If they get their act together a little, we could find invasion #3 a tough slog.
Its no stinking Terrrr Lego Land. We are talking full-on Terrrr Disney World, er Land, no World. Whatever. This is what you get when your world is colored only black and white.
So, Shi'ite Iraq would give Wahhabi Al Qaeda free rein. Interesting theory. Or, Al Qaeda is able to do what we can't - defeat Shi'a military power in Iraq. Another interesting theory. I'm guessing this guy is waterproof and battery-operated, because he's a ********ing tool.
If "Shiite Iraq" can't clamp down on AQ with the support of the US military, what makes you think they'll be able to do it on their own? In some areas, sure. In others--not so much.