apparently we would be about the same off... this just seems like deja vu in the middle east.  
i'm not happy with either side.
		
		
	 
Actually, I think we'd be worse off if the Repubs. had been in power.
Why?  Just look at their rhetoric lately....we should have left troops in Iraq, put troops into there again.  Almost like they want an occupying force left in Iraq long term, which would give the anti-American sentiment over there even more traction.  The Iraqi govt. didn't want Am. troops left there and wanted us out.  And that's what we did...we left.
Of course, a lot of what's happening now can be foretold by what happened in Iran over two decades, from the 1950's through the 1970's.  In the 1950's, Eisenhower had the democratically elected govt. of Iran overthrown and an American "friendly" dictator, the Shah, and his govt. installed.  Why?  The oil companies were scared of their facilities, etc., being taken over by the then current Iranian govt.  So, Eisenhower "helped" them by helping instigate a coup and install a "leader" friendly to America.
Guess how that worked out?  Iranians overthrow the Shah, take American hostages for a year, etc., etc., and now Iran is even more anti-American than ever before.  And that's sad because Iran in the 1950's wasn't vehemently opposed to America as it is now.
But the hawks in our current govt. know best......and that's to repeat the same mistakes we made over 50 years ago.  But this time, we overthrew a dictator in Sadam, who was really the only moderating force in the Middle East, well, until we got rid of him.  
And that's why, I believe, that the elder Bush stopped short of completely taking over Iraq during the Kuwait situation.  He knew the long term result would be a Muslim theocratic takeover of the country once our military presence left, which is exactly what happened.  We have no one but ourselves to blame for the situation with ISIS.  
And it seems the more we diddle in the Middle East, the worse it gets for us.