I wanted to highlight the absolute moral depravity that appears to be the standard at the Times with this paragraph:
Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.
The Times editorial writers can no longer plead ignorance. They're perfectly aware at what will likely follow a precipitous U.S. withdrawal -- and they don't care.
Well, maybe they care -- a little bit -- but their "response" to the problem is laughable to say the least.
The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail.
The U.N. beat a hasty retreat shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government when a suicide bomber blew up the U.N. mission, killing their top diplomat. And the U.N.'s going to want to get involved after we pull out with the Times litany of disaster occurring? What military in the world is going to want to get involved where the U.S. has failed?