Will you still be supporting this war/campaign/whatever in 2017 if there's a republican president?

[cali]

I view this as a new war, not merely some extension of the IW. It's being waged against against a new adversary/enemy. Central to this effort is bombing conducted in another country. But however you view it, if a republican is elected president, and if this is still ongoing when he takes office, will you still be supporting it? Will you support Jeb Bush or whoever in his effort to wipe out extremism?

High ranking members of the military have informed us that this campaign will likely last for years. I admit to finding that perplexing, but I'll take it at face value, so this isn't an impossible scenario. Nor is it impossible that a republican will be be elected President in 2016.

[morningfog]

1. This has been my point. Even the most loyal

Obama dem has to realize that all bets and promises are off in 2017.

This war will still be going on in 2017. This mess will be left to the next president and we have no idea who that will be.

It is not impossible that the next one will "surge" in Syria to get the job done and get us out of the quagmire. Or expand to other nations. Or pivot explicitly to Assad (if Obama hasn't already).

There is no war to know what one is supporting when there is no clear objective, no end point and no exit strategy.

Here's another possibility: a pro-Syrian war dem candidate in hawkish Hillary and an anti-Syria war republican in any repub running on an "opposite to Obama in every issue" platform.

Then what?

[jberryhill]

2. did you oppose maintenance of the no-fly zones during the Clinton administration?

Maintenance of the no-fly zones regularly required elimination of anti-aircraft installations in Iraq during the entire Clinton administration.

[reddread]

10. and sanctions

"the price was worth it"

[Recursion]

3. If a Republican President presents a convincing case that it advances US security, I'll support it

I'm shockingly consistent that way, and our current POTUS has not met that test IMO.

[cali]

5. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense

if, at the onset, you don't believe that the current CoC has presented a compelling case, doesn't it seem highly unlikely that the next denizen of the WH, will be able to do so?

I get that you're saying that you don't take party into consideration and appreciate that, but realistically....

[Recursion]

6. Cali, sorry, I was obviously unclear: I don't think there's a case that can be made here

I was just stating to avoid the charge of partisanship that if a GOP President could make a convincing case that this action was for our national security I would support it. I doubt any President could make that case. I think this will go down as Obama's major blunder, personally.

[cali]

7. thanks. I understand what you're saying.

I agree that this has all the elements necessary to produce a gigantic clusterfuck.

[hobbit709]

4. No more than I support it now.

[NaturalHigh]

8. I don't support it now.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I am against it NOW, and if it's still going on then, I will still be against it.

And it doesn't matter who is President. I will still be against it.

Yuck.