Sadly you cannot simultaneously want to disengage AND blow up Iranian generals and threaten to nuke their country.

One of the things we're sorely missing in the anglo sphere is any actually progressive candidates.

>Take for example the anti-war stance. As far as I know Trump is the only one continually advocating for a troop withdrawal in the Middle East.

Not to be pedantic but you're conflating two issues: being anti-war and being pro-troop presence. One of the big reasons the US has kept a troop presence in the middle east is to deal with the human cost of the instability that was created in the 2000s by those wars of choice.

I can't speak for all progressives but those that I know have both anti-war views (stop shit-stirring with Iran) and pro-troop presence (try to stabilize the region before withdrawal). I will admit that both have been going very poorly lately.

My sentiment is that after 20 years, something has got to give, and I wish more politicians were talking about getting out.

Obama reduced the number of troops in Iraq/Afghanistan quite a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...

The remaining troops were there in an advisory capacity. And Trump has been trying to pull out those advisors.

The needle has been pretty steadily moving for the last 10 years, it's just been slow going. It's also debatable if the number of troops there should ever be zero if they're only acting as advisors.

Obama put us also in Syria.

Trump called for a reduction of on the ground troops, but also increased the military contractors and kept up/increased the bombing and drone strikes. That isn't an anti-war stance, it's a naked appeal to family of the military.

I find the concept of Trump "advocating" anything with regard to troops odd. Isn't military where the authority of the president is the strongest? If troops are still in the Middle East he can't very well be too against them being there.

I’m not sure how “progressive” it is to let the Taliban overrun the Afghani government and ban women from working or attending any school.

That’s not the west’s problem.

It’s a humanitarian problem. If you have a people that will starve without food aid, will you also say it’s not the west’s problem? Obviously the use of force and popular support for the Taliban complicates things in Afghanistan, but I believe it still needs to be looked at in terms of the real results of our actions.

So we’ve been there 20 years. How many more decades before we realize it’s a problem we can’t solve?