Not fair at all. For starters, Bush was the one who ordered the pullout date. Not Obama. Obama stuck to the date, but Bush was the one who set it. I'd remind Wonderfly that ISIS sprung up because the woeful new Shia government that the Americans installed began to persecute the long in power Sunnis, and the rebellion of the Sunnis is what started ISIS. It didn't hurt that many ISIS fighters are angry young men who grew up with American bombs hitting their communities their entire lives, people who it wasn't hard to convince to hate the West. Would American occupation really have prevented that? Maybe? Or maybe it would have just sprung up more conflict and the Americans never would have left at all. Would these young terrorists have just said "Well, there's still a few Americans here, oh well!" So we should still occupy an area after the conflict is over forever? Because it was happening no matter what. ISIS was doomed to happen the moment bombs started dropping in Iraq. As for being for the Iraq War... you're entitled to your opinion. But there was no victory. The war was incredibly unpopular, and war without homefront support is doomed. Some estimates say there were be 1.2 million dead by the time Obama pulled out. Over a trillion dollars spent. And what was it for? WMDs? Nope, Iraq didn't have those. Retaliation for 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved, and Bush openly said that he was more worried about the Iraq invasion that finding bin Laden, who actually did it. I'd also like to remind you that the Bush government originally pinned the anthrax scare on Iraq. Guess what? They weren't involved in that either. It wasn't worth it. Getting involved in the Shia/Sunni conflict is doomed to fail. Perhaps if America hadn't created such a woeful Iraqi government with a dreadful military, then maybe Iraq could fought ISIS off by themselves. To fully prevent ISIS, the American military would basically have had to stayed there till the end of time. To say otherwise is basically propaganda.