IRAQ: Was it worth it?

[ogibillm]

The end results in Iraq look to be no different than those in Syria or Libya. Using the middle east as our personal lego collection is not working. Having said that, we must not allow terrorists to amass. We should be using Airstrikes in Iraq before we have to use ambulances & fire trucks in America again.

i'm not sure that's a 100% great idea. I mean some of those people have grievances with their government not including them in the process. If we use air strikes to push them back we'll appear to be on the side of marginalizing and excluding them, which could drive people who have no beef with the US - or at least not enough to carry out attacks against us - to the point of action.

 

[Kondor3]

The end results in Iraq look to be no different than those in Syria or Libya. Using the middle east as our personal lego collection is not working. Having said that, we must not allow terrorists to amass. We should be using Airstrikes in Iraq before we have to use ambulances & fire trucks in America again.

In theory, I could not possibly agree with you more.

In practice, I do not believe further intervention to be practical, nor likely to produce any positive outcome.

Like it or not, we are dealing with a situation wherein the National Army and the National Security Forces are melting before our eyes - people shucking their uniforms and taking their weapons home by the thousands, deserting, and either awaiting what comes next, or actually joining the rebels (terrorists).

The speed and profound depth of the successes that the rebels (terrorists) are experiencing illustrate for us, in no uncertain terms, that the window of opportunity for us to once again effectively intervene has closed.

Rightly or wrongly, I perceive that attempting to conduct airstrikes on a greatly dispersed and easily-masked and fast-moving and diversely-segmented gaggle or collection of rebel formations will be much like trying to herd a room full of cats... damned-near impossible, and simply not worth the trouble, and not even worth trying.

Rightly or wrongly, I perceive this state of affairs as beyond salvage - indeed, I'm not overly confident that we were not simply deluding ourselves earlier, while we were still in-country, that we were doing any real good, in connection with attempts at nation-building.

I sense a repeat of the American helicopters on top of an American Embassy building, about to unfold, all over again, ala Saigon in 1975... and that coming within a matter of days, or a couple of weeks.

In the case of both Vietnam and Iraq, we walked-out, rather than running, having had a bellyful of trying to nation-build, on behalf of people who would rather slaughter each other than work towards a compromise or peaceful resolution, and, within a matter of a couple of years after walking out, they started tearing each other apart, and the side that we favored got its ass kicked, and fell apart.

In both cases, we won the War and lost the Peace, after spending large amounts of blood and treasure in the attempt.

The difference being, in the case of Vietnam, we were trying to stem the tide of Communism in Southeast Asia, while, in the case of Iraq, we were trying to do... ummmm... uhhhhh... I dunno what we were trying to do; at least not reliably. The trouble with Iraq is that most of the rest of America doesn't know (or believe in) what we were trying to accomplish in Iraq, either.

Comes a time, mine good colleague, when you reach a Point of Diminishing Returns, on any given venture, and cut-bait, rather than continue fishing. That's only common sense.

Methinks we have reached that point, in the collective American Psyche, and that continuing to engage over there - continuing to belabor the point - risks a renewed and even more bitter divisiveness between Americans that we simply don't need at the moment.

Is it possible that we allow a formidable MONSTER to be born, by not intervening further in Iraq?

Yes.

Nolo contendere.

No contest.

But, at this late stage in the game, after 13 years of protracted and largely unfocused and highly expensive and low-yielding assymetric warfare, and the deep and profound disgust and war-weariness that attends to such a protracted endurance test, it seems likely that we have reach a 'saturation point', in connection with intervention in Iraq, and that The People are no longer even marginally supportive of such actions.

And, of course, most of us (yourself, included, almost certainly) are willing to abide by the collective judgment and will of The People, when push comes to shove, once all the talking is over, and it's time to act - or to refrain from acting.

Do we risk another and even more deadly attack by Islamic terrorists in future, if we choose not to intervene in Iraq now?

Again... yes... nolo contendere... no contest.

But if Islamists attack America again, our response will make the Afghan and Iraqi adventures look like long, drawn-out Sunday School Picnics by comparison. Any such future response on our part will be swift and savage and unforgiving and on a staggering and tremendous scale that will be remembered and feared for many generations to come.

If they (Islamist terror-groups, or governments which include them as a component) have a single brain between them, they understand at least that much about us now.

I think, mine good colleague, that we are at a point where we have to take that chance, and walk away from further intervention - devil take the hindmost - damn the consequences.

It's not a good place to be in, either tactically nor strategically, but that's what 13 years of assymetrical warfare will do, especially when more than half of the effort of those 13 years was in connection with the country that is currently melting-away before our eyes, because their own people will not fight for themselves.

To my way of thinking, the ghosts of every American who died in Vietnam, are looking down on us, and holding the hands and comforting the shades of our newly-arrived Iraqi War dead, and whispering to us: "Learn, please, for God's sake, learn from us, and the lessons of our times." . If we open our minds, we are still capable of learning from our past mistakes, and not repeating them yet again.

An overly-maudlin or melodramatic illustration, perhaps, but it gets the job done.

With the greatest possible respect, I have to disagree on this one, Gramps.

I vote: Hands off. Stay clear. We're done, there.

 

[1776]

I guess the idiots that want the AQ mess to grow would be ok with giving up on cancer coming back in their own body.....

 

[1776]

Uh, the difference is we didn't have the capability of removing the Soviets without starting WW3.

Also, the Soviets weren't going to blow up NYC like AQ terrorists are scheming to do, given the Soviets knew we would blow them off the face of the Earth.

AQ doesn't give a shit if they die while killing you....

As much as I hate it....

I see the current Iraq situation as anagolous to post WWII Europe: While there are no Soviets invading liberated Czechoslovakia, there are Syrians (radical Sunnis) and Iranians (radical Shiites) invading liberated Iraq. Also anagolous is the prevalence of ethnic in-fighting in both Czechoslovakia and Iraq.

We will no more prevent the invasion of Iraq than we prevented the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. To "blame Obama" for the current situation, we would then blame Truman for the Potsdam Treaty, and eventually Johnson.

 

[U2Edge]

The end results in Iraq look to be no different than those in Syria or Libya. Using the middle east as our personal lego collection is not working. Having said that, we must not allow terrorists to amass. We should be using Airstrikes in Iraq before we have to use ambulances & fire trucks in America again.

In theory, I could not possibly agree with you more.

In practice, I do not believe further intervention to be practical, nor likely to produce any positive outcome.

Like it or not, we are dealing with a situation wherein the National Army and the National Security Forces are melting before our eyes - people shucking their uniforms and taking their weapons home by the thousands, deserting, and either awaiting what comes next, or actually joining the rebels (terrorists).

The speed and profound depth of the successes that the rebels (terrorists) are experiencing illustrate for us, in no uncertain terms, that the window of opportunity for us to once again effectively intervene has closed.

Rightly or wrongly, I perceive that attempting to conduct airstrikes on a greatly dispersed and easily-masked and fast-moving and diversely-segmented gaggle or collection of rebel formations will be much like trying to herd a room full of cats... damned-near impossible, and simply not worth the trouble, and not even worth trying.

Rightly or wrongly, I perceive this state of affairs as beyond salvage - indeed, I'm not overly confident that we were not simply deluding ourselves earlier, while we were still in-country, that we were doing any real good, in connection with attempts at nation-building.

I sense a repeat of the American helicopters on top of an American Embassy building, about to unfold, all over again, ala Saigon in 1975... and that coming within a matter of days, or a couple of weeks.

In the case of both Vietnam and Iraq, we walked-out, rather than running, having had a bellyful of trying to nation-build, on behalf of people who would rather slaughter each other than work towards a compromise or peaceful resolution, and, within a matter of a couple of years after walking out, they started tearing each other apart, and the side that we favored got its ass kicked, and fell apart.

In both cases, we won the War and lost the Peace, after spending large amounts of blood and treasure in the attempt.

The difference being, in the case of Vietnam, we were trying to stem the tide of Communism in Southeast Asia, while, in the case of Iraq, we were trying to do... ummmm... uhhhhh... I dunno what we were trying to do; at least not reliably. The trouble with Iraq is that most of the rest of America doesn't know (or believe in) what we were trying to accomplish in Iraq, either.

Comes a time, mine good colleague, when you reach a Point of Diminishing Returns, on any given venture, and cut-bait, rather than continue fishing. That's only common sense.

Methinks we have reached that point, in the collective American Psyche, and that continuing to engage over there - continuing to belabor the point - risks a renewed and even more bitter divisiveness between Americans that we simply don't need at the moment.

Is it possible that we allow a formidable MONSTER to be born, by not intervening further in Iraq?

Yes.

Nolo contendere.

No contest.

But, at this late stage in the game, after 13 years of protracted and largely unfocused and highly expensive and low-yielding assymetric warfare, and the deep and profound disgust and war-weariness that attends to such a protracted endurance test, it seems likely that we have reach a 'saturation point', in connection with intervention in Iraq, and that The People are no longer even marginally supportive of such actions.

And, of course, most of us (yourself, included, almost certainly) are willing to abide by the collective judgment and will of The People, when push comes to shove, once all the talking is over, and it's time to act - or to refrain from acting.

Do we risk another and even more deadly attack by Islamic terrorists in future, if we choose not to intervene in Iraq now?

Again... yes... nolo contendere... no contest.

But if Islamists attack America again, our response will make the Afghan and Iraqi adventures look like long, drawn-out Sunday School Picnics by comparison. Any such future response on our part will be swift and savage and unforgiving and on a staggering and tremendous scale that will be remembered and feared for many generations to come.

If they (Islamist terror-groups, or governments which include them as a component) have a single brain between them, they understand at least that much about us now.

I think, mine good colleague, that we are at a point where we have to take that chance, and walk away from further intervention - devil take the hindmost - damn the consequences.

It's not a good place to be in, either tactically nor strategically, but that's what 13 years of assymetrical warfare will do, especially when more than half of the effort of those 13 years was in connection with the country that is currently melting-away before our eyes, because their own people will not fight for themselves.

To my way of thinking, the ghosts of every American who died in Vietnam, are looking down on us, and holding the hands and comforting the shades of our newly-arrived Iraqi War dead, and whispering to us: "Learn, please, for God's sake, learn from us, and the lessons of our times." . If we open our minds, we are still capable of learning from our past mistakes, and not repeating them yet again.

An overly-maudlin or melodramatic illustration, perhaps, but it gets the job done.

With the greatest possible respect, I have to disagree on this one, Gramps.

I vote: Hands off. Stay clear. We're done, there.

The United States is NEVER done where its national security is involved. While the terrorist may be difficult to target from the air, that does not mean they can't be. In late 2001, the United States used primarily air power and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. At most 5,000 US troops were on the ground in Afghanistan in 2001. US Airpower working with Iraqi forces on the ground can turn back the terrorist and allow thousands of Iraqi's to return to their home. The United States has been using air power against insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade because it can be effective against such forces when used properly.

For those nostalgic for scenes of the U.S. helicopters leaving the Embassy in South Vietnam in 1975, its not going to happen in Iraq. The advance of ISIS has already been stopped and Iraqi forces are starting to retake some of the ground that has been lost. The ISIS terrorist do not have the numbers to control that vast amount of territory that the Iraqi military retreated from, let alone take a city the size of Baghdad.

 

[U2Edge]

No, Iraq was certainly not worth it.

Every single thing the hawks said and predicted was wrong. You hawks promised that we'd be greeted as liberators and you were wrong. Said it would last a matter of weeks, in and out in 6 months. Wrong. Said there were WMD's that were ready to be used against us. Wrong. Said the oil would pay for the war. Said you knew where Saddam was. Told the Sunnis they could go take a hike and favorited and propped up the Shiites, who have governed Iraq into this mess by totally abusing their power over the other two factions because George W. Bush and the Republicans required nothing from the Shiites they were propping up that tied their funding from us to their willingness to play fair with the other two sects of that country.

So we should take their armchair quarterbacking today with a grain of salt. The way we all do with John McCain, for instance.

Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history and it has everything to do with how it was cooked up and conducted by the George W. Bush administration and his neo-con cabal. That is our history and those Republicans in denial today must own it.

George W. Bush decided to disband the Iraqi army to his own detriment.

Dubya and the Neo-Cons did no planning whatsoever on the political side of the war and their bad decisions turned Iraq into what we see today. Of course the right wants to send troops back in, because they want to forever save face and be able to have their talking point that somehow Iraq was a victory for them when we all know it for the grand folly that it was.

The United States removed Saddam because of the threat he posed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Given that removing Saddam was successful, it was more than worth it. Kuwait is safer now than it has been at any time in its history, which is great for the vast amounts of oil and natural gas that flow out of that country and into the world market!

 

[1776]

It is amazing people here and in the general public that have no military experience and no clue are always the ones shouting about what we shouldn't do with the military as if they are the experts and know how to pull off an operation to kill terrorists.

 

[U2Edge]

Let's blame Bush for breaking it in the first place.

Let's blame Obama for walking away before it was fixed.

Plenty of blame to go around.

And none of it means shit.

What DOES signify is where we are TODAY.

And what we plan on doing about it.

If anything.

Saddam needed to be removed. Anyone who thinks the United States or in particular Kuwait would be better off with Saddam in power is crazy.

Why is that? He kept Iran and terrorists in check.

HE INVADED AND ANNEXED KUWAIT, the first INVASION AND ANNEXATION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE ADOLF HITLER DID IT IN WOLRD WAR II. HIS ACTIONS DAMAGED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND HIS CONTINUED CONTROL OF IRAQ THREATENED KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA WHO'S NATURAL RESOURCES ARE VITAL TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY! Iran and terrorist have not been able to do anything as destabilizing as that!

 

[Samson]

Anagolous doesn't mean exact, idiot.

You seem to be pretty certain about our military capability at this point to save Iraq. I guess you're on the Chiefs of Staff, maybe a 5 star general, taking time out from your strategy session in the penatgon to mull it over here on USMB.

You also seem to have an imtimate knowledge of what the Soviets might have done had we engaged them in 1968. Must be your background at the Politburo before joining US armed services.

Thanks for playing. Your Moronic response has been amusing.

Uh, the difference is we didn't have the capability of removing the Soviets without starting WW3.

Also, the Soviets weren't going to blow up NYC like AQ terrorists are scheming to do, given the Soviets knew we would blow them off the face of the Earth.

AQ doesn't give a shit if they die while killing you....

As much as I hate it....

I see the current Iraq situation as anagolous to post WWII Europe: While there are no Soviets invading liberated Czechoslovakia, there are Syrians (radical Sunnis) and Iranians (radical Shiites) invading liberated Iraq. Also anagolous is the prevalence of ethnic in-fighting in both Czechoslovakia and Iraq.

We will no more prevent the invasion of Iraq than we prevented the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. To "blame Obama" for the current situation, we would then blame Truman for the Potsdam Treaty, and eventually Johnson.

 

[1776]

Shitstain....you have no clue what we can do to AQ terrorists.

"5-star GO/FO"....uh, they don't have them anymore, idiot. The CJCS is only 4-star. I've worked with a bunch of 4-stars (Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines), never saw 1 5-star. Maybe the Coast Guard has one, you go check.

As for letting AQ take over Iraq because we let the Soviets take over eastern Europe after WW2 and during the "Cold War," that about sums up your stupidity....idiot.

Now run along boy, go find your 5-star....

Anagolous doesn't mean exact, idiot.

You seem to be pretty certain about our military capability at this point to save Iraq. I guess you're on the Chiefs of Staff, maybe a 5 star general, taking time out from your strategy session in the penatgon to mull it over here on USMB.

You also seem to have an imtimate knowledge of what the Soviets might have done had we engaged them in 1968. Must be your background at the Politburo before joining US armed services.

Thanks for playing. Your Moronic response has been amusing.

Uh, the difference is we didn't have the capability of removing the Soviets without starting WW3.

Also, the Soviets weren't going to blow up NYC like AQ terrorists are scheming to do, given the Soviets knew we would blow them off the face of the Earth.

AQ doesn't give a shit if they die while killing you....

As much as I hate it....

I see the current Iraq situation as anagolous to post WWII Europe: While there are no Soviets invading liberated Czechoslovakia, there are Syrians (radical Sunnis) and Iranians (radical Shiites) invading liberated Iraq. Also anagolous is the prevalence of ethnic in-fighting in both Czechoslovakia and Iraq.

We will no more prevent the invasion of Iraq than we prevented the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. To "blame Obama" for the current situation, we would then blame Truman for the Potsdam Treaty, and eventually Johnson.

 

[Samson]

This is exactly the kind of response I would have predicted from as august a student of historical knowledge as you've proven to be in this thread.



Bravo

Hi, you have received -418 reputation points from 1776.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
**** off shitbag

Regards,
1776

Shitstain....you have no clue what we can do to AQ terrorists.

"5-star GO/FO"....uh, they don't have them anymore, idiot. The CJCS is only 4-star. I've worked with a bunch of 4-stars (Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines), never saw 1 5-star. Maybe the Coast Guard has one, you go check.

As for letting AQ take over Iraq because we let the Soviets take over eastern Europe after WW2 and during the "Cold War," that about sums up your stupidity....idiot.

Now run along boy, go find your 5-star....

Anagolous doesn't mean exact, idiot.

You seem to be pretty certain about our military capability at this point to save Iraq. I guess you're on the Chiefs of Staff, maybe a 5 star general, taking time out from your strategy session in the penatgon to mull it over here on USMB.

You also seem to have an imtimate knowledge of what the Soviets might have done had we engaged them in 1968. Must be your background at the Politburo before joining US armed services.

Thanks for playing. Your Moronic response has been amusing.

Uh, the difference is we didn't have the capability of removing the Soviets without starting WW3.

Also, the Soviets weren't going to blow up NYC like AQ terrorists are scheming to do, given the Soviets knew we would blow them off the face of the Earth.

AQ doesn't give a shit if they die while killing you....

 

[1776]

Like a liberal....smoke and mirrors distractions after getting your ass pounded.

Run along boy....go find your 5-star General/Admiral or whatever you call them.

This is exactly the kind of response I would have predicted from as august a student of historical knowledge as you've proven to be in this thread.



Bravo

Hi, you have received -418 reputation points from 1776.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
**** off shitbag

Regards,
1776

Shitstain....you have no clue what we can do to AQ terrorists.

"5-star GO/FO"....uh, they don't have them anymore, idiot. The CJCS is only 4-star. I've worked with a bunch of 4-stars (Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines), never saw 1 5-star. Maybe the Coast Guard has one, you go check.

As for letting AQ take over Iraq because we let the Soviets take over eastern Europe after WW2 and during the "Cold War," that about sums up your stupidity....idiot.

Now run along boy, go find your 5-star....

Anagolous doesn't mean exact, idiot.

You seem to be pretty certain about our military capability at this point to save Iraq. I guess you're on the Chiefs of Staff, maybe a 5 star general, taking time out from your strategy session in the penatgon to mull it over here on USMB.

You also seem to have an imtimate knowledge of what the Soviets might have done had we engaged them in 1968. Must be your background at the Politburo before joining US armed services.

Thanks for playing. Your Moronic response has been amusing.

 

[Samson]

It is amazing people here and in the general public that have no military experience and no clue are always the ones shouting about what we shouldn't do with the military as if they are the experts and know how to pull off an operation to kill terrorists.

You are now the official USMB Frank Burns

 

[1776]

Shitstain.....tell us with your limited military knowledge why the DoD can't remove/destroy AQ in Iraq right now.

We see you watched MASH but that doesn't measure up.

You know much more than the DoD, eh?

It is amazing people here and in the general public that have no military experience and no clue are always the ones shouting about what we shouldn't do with the military as if they are the experts and know how to pull off an operation to kill terrorists.

You are now the official USMB Frank Burns

 

[1776]

The troll, Samson, is now trolling the internet for another gif....

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know what? I've listened to arguments back and forth for forever on Iraq. I personally think that Bush and Blair were thinking ahead that if Saddam died his insane truly insane sons would get Iraq and Lord help the planet.

That WMD's as we know them were not the cause. But the sons were. The whacked out sons were the WMD's.And consequently while "we were in the region anyway", they saw a moment in time to take out those psycho killer kids of Saddam for the good of the region.

And I ***** all the time about going back to Bush as the starting point.

Why? Because for any one with any intelligence who is not an Obama appendage sucker if you go back to the League of Nations you can explain today in the here and now.

Sadly though I am surrounded on this board by left wing boot strap marching morons who won't even know what the League of Nations was.

td, what you are missing is that Bush and Cheney that they understood no better than the English that western intervention eventually withers away and the shia and the sunni go back to the slug fest.

 

[Samson]

Shitstain.....tell us with your limited military knowledge why the DoD can't remove/destroy AQ in Iraq right now.

We see you watched MASH but that doesn't measure up.

You know much more than the DoD, eh?

 

[Brain357]

No, Iraq was certainly not worth it.

Every single thing the hawks said and predicted was wrong. You hawks promised that we'd be greeted as liberators and you were wrong. Said it would last a matter of weeks, in and out in 6 months. Wrong. Said there were WMD's that were ready to be used against us. Wrong. Said the oil would pay for the war. Said you knew where Saddam was. Told the Sunnis they could go take a hike and favorited and propped up the Shiites, who have governed Iraq into this mess by totally abusing their power over the other two factions because George W. Bush and the Republicans required nothing from the Shiites they were propping up that tied their funding from us to their willingness to play fair with the other two sects of that country.

So we should take their armchair quarterbacking today with a grain of salt. The way we all do with John McCain, for instance.

Iraq was the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history and it has everything to do with how it was cooked up and conducted by the George W. Bush administration and his neo-con cabal. That is our history and those Republicans in denial today must own it.

George W. Bush decided to disband the Iraqi army to his own detriment.

Dubya and the Neo-Cons did no planning whatsoever on the political side of the war and their bad decisions turned Iraq into what we see today. Of course the right wants to send troops back in, because they want to forever save face and be able to have their talking point that somehow Iraq was a victory for them when we all know it for the grand folly that it was.

The United States removed Saddam because of the threat he posed to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Given that removing Saddam was successful, it was more than worth it. Kuwait is safer now than it has been at any time in its history, which is great for the vast amounts of oil and natural gas that flow out of that country and into the world market!

Those are both very rich countries. I think they could have defended themselves.

 

[1776]

Yep......you go into your gif/jpeg library, like a tool living in your mother's basement.

Watch out, you might mistakenly post some of your gay porn pics here....

Shitstain.....tell us with your limited military knowledge why the DoD can't remove/destroy AQ in Iraq right now.

We see you watched MASH but that doesn't measure up.

You know much more than the DoD, eh?

 

[Kondor3]

Saddam needed to be removed. Anyone who thinks the United States or in particular Kuwait would be better off with Saddam in power is crazy.

Why is that? He kept Iran and terrorists in check.

HE INVADED AND ANNEXED KUWAIT, the first INVASION AND ANNEXATION OF ANOTHER COUNTRY SINCE ADOLF HITLER DID IT IN WOLRD WAR II. HIS ACTIONS DAMAGED THE GLOBAL ECONOMY AND HIS CONTINUED CONTROL OF IRAQ THREATENED KUWAIT AND SAUDI ARABIA WHO'S NATURAL RESOURCES ARE VITAL TO THE GLOBAL ECONOMY! Iran and terrorist have not been able to do anything as destabilizing as that!

And President George H.W. Bush pushed him back into Iraq, and freed Kuwait.

Utilizing a UN Mandate and the best and toughest most inclusive coalition that the world has seen since the 1940s.

What his son George W. Bush did in Iraq, however, is quite another matter, and entirely unncessary.

I supported our assault on Iraq in 1991.

I did not support our assault on Iraq in 2003.

Although, once we went in there, I kept my mouth shut, to avoid giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and supported our boys and girls there, until they came home.

And have pretty much been out of the Iraq conversation ever since, now that we no longer have boots on the ground.

But now that it's back on our scopes again...

I feel the need to speak-out against further intervention, at this late date.

If we DO decide to go back in there, I will, once again, shut my mouth, and support our kids, as they engage.

But I reserve the right to counsel against it, before they go in, and, of course, once they're out and clear again, I reserve the right to throw rocks at the idea, keeping in-mind and being respectful-of and grateful-for the sacrifice of anyone stuck following orders in such an ill-advised revisiting of an ill-advised and costly and tragic adventure.