The USA will support the Government of Iraq - the only democratically elected Government the country has ever had in its entire history.

1: Many here on this forum stated that the US had gone into Iraq to "steal Iraqi oil" - They did not steal so much as one barrel.

2: Many here on this forum stated that the US had gone into Iraq to build and then permanently man military bases from which they would attack Iran - Yet the US Government withdrew all its troops as soon as the elected Government of Iraq intimated that their presence was no longer required, in fact they left before the deadline expired.

3: I am at present unaware that the Government of Iraq has requested the intervention within its borders by any US troops.

So the answer to the question posed in the opening post of this thread - Has the US shot its bolt? - is No it has not, not by a long shot. What is happening in both Syria and Iraq today is an Arab problem - leave them to it.

One odd thing I read a couple of days ago though, a British Company has been contracted by the Iraqis down in Basra to act as consultants to improve security in and around the city.

On a purely historical note for kendall:

"Shot its bolt I believe goes back to the days of the cross bow. Those arrows were called bolts.A long bow in the hands of an English archer was more than a match, as the French found out at places such as Agincourt."

It would be Shot his bolt

Crossbow was easier to use but had a slower rate of fire, but far better penetrative power against the armour of the day.

The Crossbowmen with the French at Agincourt were mercenaries and had been paid off as their services were considered to be not required taking into account the massive numerical advantage the French had, so their possible contribution to the battle cannot be evaluated as they took no part in the battle.

Getting back the rate of fire that could be achieved with a Longbow and the time the English archers would have had to have maintained their fire if the myth that they won the battle is to be believed means that at six shafts a minute (Some say twelve could be achieved) the entire English Army at Agincourt would not have been able to carry the number of arrows required to sustain that rate of fire. Remembering of course that that English Army was hungry, thirsty and all but dead on their feet from dysentery - i.e. fed up, fucked up and far from home (They were engaged in a fighting retreat falling back towards the safe evacuation port of Calais)

At Agincourt the French, who were leaderless, basically defeated themselves, English archers only served to "bunch them" together as they struggled in full armour across the ploughed field they elected to march over to attack the English with the end result that they could not deploy to outflank the English and that they were exhausted when they did eventually make contact and come to blows.