If we had maintained a small, residual force in Iraq, I don't think the Islamic State would have risen to power as it has.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The United States should have stepped up and destroyed ISIS at its origins rather than wait until ISIS grew their capabilities and influence.
If the Islamic State is losing, if they are defeated in Iraq and Syria, or in Libya, which is maybe their most dangerous and most well-developed cell today, then they won't inspire nearly so many attacks.
Air power will not defeat ISIS. It has not been able to deny ISIS freedom of maneuver and the ability to attack at will.
At the end of the day we want to bring stability and hope to Iraq. That's the only way to defeat terrorism.
We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America. Period.
The foremost threat to Iraq's long-term stability and the broader regional equilibrium is not the Islamic State, it is Shiite militias, many backed by - and some guided by - Iran.
Nothing is more powerful than hearing from former members of the group that ISIS is not creating an Islamist utopia in the areas it controls, but a hell on earth.
I'm optimistic because I'm pragmatic: Neither of the two sides, the military government nor the Islamic front, is capable of winning. If they continue to fight, they will both bleed to death.
Any time you have someone's first-hand account of the sheer terror that ISIS can provoke... that's powerful.
I think it's reality that Iran is going to have influence in Iraq. All elements of Iraq accepted that.
No opposing quotes found.