It was supposed to be over, America’s war in Iraq. So all the old emotions boiled up anew as Americans absorbed the news that U.S. bombs were again striking targets in the nation where the United States led an invasion in 2003, lost almost 4,500 troops in the fight to stabilize and liberate it and then left nearly three years ago.

In interviews across the country, from Maine to the 9/11 memorial in New York to the Iowa State Fair and an Arizona war monument, Americans voiced conflicted feelings late last week about the airstrikes ordered by President Obama, who had fulfilled a campaign promise when he withdrew the last U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011.

Additional Images

Dave and Cindy Bogle, of Johnston, Iowa, attend the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. Dave, who says he serves as a military policeman in the late 1960s, thinks the United States should be out of Iraq - it’s a no win situation. The Associated Press

Doyle Ellis of New Virginia, Iowa, attends the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines. The post office worker said going into Iraq is the right thing to do, but the United States should be there as peacekeepers.

Many supporting the decision to bomb now did so for contrasting reasons. Those opposed said the U.S. never should have invaded Iraq in the first place, but they also struggled with America’s obligation to the ravaged, upended nation, which has endured violence between rival Islamic sects and, recently, the ruthless onslaught of the militant group calling itself the Islamic State.

There was one constant across Americans’ opinions: Nobody could envision a concrete solution to Iraq’s problems.

Neil McCanon, who was deployed to Iraq for four months as an armored crewman in the Army, said the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq in 2003. “I felt like it was not really justified, and it was proven to be unjustified after we got there,” he said, referring to the never-found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alleged threat cited to justify the war.

But he thought Friday’s airstrikes, which targeted Islamic State militants who have conquered swaths of Iraq and Syria, were the right thing to do.

“These are bad guys, there’s no question about that. The only question is where do we use force and how much, I guess,” said McCanon, who now is co-owner of the Virginia Beach-based Young Veterans Brewing Co.

One of the main reasons McCanon voted for Obama was because he promised to end the war. He trusts Obama’s pledge not to send ground troops, but where exactly to draw the line about the use of force remains an open question for him.

“That’s something I’m just conflicted on as a soldier and someone who spent time there. I don’t want the place to fall into chaos,” McCanon said.

San Pao of Gorham, Maine, who served in Iraq with the Maine National Guard in 2004-05, also supported the bombing campaign, but said Obama should draw the line there.

“No boots on the ground,” he said Saturday in a telephone interview with the Maine Sunday Telegram.

Pao said he backs an effort to provide humanitarian relief from those being harmed by Islamic State fighters targeting non-Islamic Iraqis.

But bombing can be done by high-flying jets and drones and that minimizes the danger to Americans, said Pao, a retired staff sergeant.

Sending in ground troops, he said, would mean “blood on our hands.”

Tom Lord, a 60-year-old retired firefighter from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who was visiting Manhattan’s 9/11 memorial Friday, said he supports the new bombing, even though he disagrees with most of Obama’s decisions.

“I would hope they send troops, but I don’t believe Obama will. We need to go over there and establish peace again, or at least try to,” he said.

Lord supported the original 2003 invasion. He thought the latest problems were a result of Obama pulling troops out too soon: “They needed to train up the Iraqis more than they did. They pulled out way too soon and now look what happened.”

“There’s a direct connection to that and what is happening now,” Lord said, speaking near the South Tower reflecting pool. “When you have a void, terrorists are going to fill it in.”

Does that mean America is still responsible for protecting Iraq, years after handing the country control of its own future?

Timothy Broxson in downtown Pensacola, Florida, answered this way: “I don’t know if it is our responsibility, but I believe it is the right thing to do.”

Broxson, 57, whose father and brother are military veterans, said, “I believe we should help.”

“It is a slaughter,” he said of the militants’ advance, “and we need to do something about it.”

Pausing at the Iowa State Fair, Doyle Ellis of New Virginia, Iowa, said he thinks the airstrikes are the right move but will draw America back into Iraq for several more years. Yet the 61-year-old post office employee is conflicted: “Sometimes I feel like we shouldn’t be over there.”

“I don’t think that we should be running their country,” echoed Kevin Meyers, 42, an unemployed roofer who was pausing near the World War II memorial in Phoenix.

However, he added, “Being the United States of America, we’ve always stepped in when people are not being treated fairly. I think we do have a responsibility, especially since the Christian minority is being target by the extremists.”

Maine Sunday Telegram Staff Writer Edward D. Murphy contributed to this report.

Related Stories