Will Iraq War 3 Dominate GOP (and Dem?) Debates In 2016?

[Likely Voter]

Back in 2008 the Iraq war was a huge issue for both Dems and the GOP. Then in 2012 the issue barely came up. None of the GOP nominees pushed that hard to keep troops in Iraq and it wasn't big general campaign issue. But now that the Islamic State is beheading Americans and the Secretary of Defense is saying that ISIS/Islamic State is the biggest potential threat we have seen, it appears that Iraq (and Syria) are going to be big issues in 2016.

Obama is already bombing in Iraq and arming the Kurds and 'friendly' Syrians. But will any of the GOPers actually call for combat troops in Iraq and for bombing in Syria? And assuming we are still bombing in Iraq a year from now, will Paul or others be calling to end the bombing and stop engaging?

I think this may be the biggest issue of disagreement among the GOPers with the hawks and the isolationist wings finally going at it.


And it may be an issue on the Dem side, certainly if it is Sanders v Clinton.

[Likely Voter]

If we're just bombing, it probably won't have much impact, like the NATO strikes in the former Yugoslavia didn't have much impact.

Well but 'just bombing' isn't enough for the war hawk wing is the point. They want more. Plus the Bosnian Serbs were genocidal, but they weren't beheading Americans and posting it on YouTube - and threatening more.


The options are:
1. continue Obama policy: drones and bombs + arming friendlies
2. stop bombing + disengage
3. More bombing (including in Syria) + send in the combat troops to Iraq (and maybe even Syria)

[Likely Voter]

Political parties are less supportive of wars started by the other side's Presidents.

This is one of the reasons why I think it is going to be a big deal. None of the GOPers will want to take the position that the Obama policy towards the Islamic State is the right policy, which means they will have to propose something different - and specific. That means talking about sending in troops and expanding the bombing, or on the other side stopping the bombing and trying to focus on diplomacy.

It will also be interesting to see where Hillary stands on this. She has been critical of Obama on not dealing with ISIS earlier. By this time next year she will have her own policy prescription. And whatever that is, the GOPers will want to contrast themselves with that. If Hillary is mostly unopposed for a Dem primary, she may even be calling for more aggressive action (noting the humanitarian angle to stopping ISIS).

So GOPers would have to find a position that is differant than Obama and Hillary. While Obama has been the obsession of the GOP, by this time next year they will begin the transition to going after Hillary more.

[Likely Voter]

Interesting comment from Rand Paul

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rand-paul-warns-dems-what-will-happen-if-they-nominate-war-hawk-hillary-clinton/

[Likely Voter]

By next summer when the campaign will begin we may already be bombing in Syria

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/us-islamic-state-syria_n_5701415.html

The Obama admin may make it difficult for any of the GOPers to take a more hawkish position without calling for combat troops on the ground, the one thing Obama continues to rule out (for now)

[Likely Voter]

None of that matters though. The campaign against ISIS is nothing like the war in Kosovo. The Bosnians were not threatening to kill American civilians. Plus it is post 9/11 and these guys are a radical offshoot of Al Queda.  So my point is that ISIS has brought Iraq back as a political issue and I don't see how it wont play a role in the debates.