Pentagon May Ask for Boots on the Ground in Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:21:34 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Iraq, Syria (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

At a congressional hearing today, General Martin Dempsey would not rule out sending ground troops to Iraq.

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” he said. “But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”

The plan so far, according to Dempsey and Secretary Hagel: [More...]

They said the plan would include the training and equipping of 5,000 Syrian fighters, the involvement of more than 40 coalition nations, including 30 that have pledged military support, and 1,600 American military personnel who will assist.

Hagel then reiterated the Administration line:

“This is ultimately their fight,” Mr. Hagel said, referring to the Middle Eastern countries that are most immediately threatened by the militant group.

And Dempsey said:

“Truly there is no military solution to ISIL,” he said, adding that it could be defeated only with a more comprehensive approach that includes diplomacy. “That may be a tough pill to swallow. But there is no military solution.”

Congress is scheduled to vote tomorrow on arming and training the Syrian rebels.

One Democrat who says he's voting against the bill: Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

"At the end of the day, most of the arms that we give to people are used against us. Most of the people we train turn against us," Manchin said Tuesday on CNN's "New Day."

Listening to Sirius in the car yesterday: retired Col. Tom Wilkerson (former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell who has become a huge critic of Republican warmongers) told MSNBC that John McCain and Lindsey Graham need to check into a hospital and get some meds. You can watch here. Less histrionically, on CNN, former counterterrorism advisor Daniel Benjamin talked about the over-hyping of claims the U.S. is in danger from ISIS. (video here.)

ISIS today, through its official media arm Al Hayat Media Center, released a 53 second trailer of a forthcoming video, "The Flames of War." (you can watch here.) The subtitle is "The Fighting Has Just Become." There is a killing scene of ISIS fighters pointing guns at a group of men dressed in civilian clothes, but no beheadings. Other than that it's just one screenshot after of things blowing up with sound. There's also a screeenshot of Obama saying there will be no boots in Iraq, and a sign that says "Mission Accomplished." I think one of the battle scenes include the military commander Abu Wahib(Waheeb), who aside from the black clad executioner, is the most photographed ISIS commander due to his fearsome but charismatic appearance.

In Iraq government news, the Iraqi Parliament today rejected Prime Minister Abadi's choices for Defense and Interior minister.

The Iraqi parliament voted down Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi's nominees for defense and interior minister Tuesday, leaving the key positions unfilled as the country battles to regain ground from militants.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Tuesday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pentagon May Ask for Boots on the Ground in Iraq | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

ah, history repeating itself. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 11:03:52 PM EST

our involvement in Vietnam started with US troops in "advisory positions" to the S.V. army, fighting both an insurgency (Vietcong) and the NVA. unlike wwI & WWII, there were no well defined front lines in either korea or Vietnam. this meant that any US military "advisors" were, by definition, in a potential combat zone. and we know how that turned out. the Tonkin gulf incident was simply an excuse to raise the stakes, US troops had already been fighting there for a couple of years.

we have 1,600 troops in Iraq, as "advisors". I guarantee, if a few of them get shot at or, god forbid, killed in an ambush, the neocons will be screaming for blood. that's how it works. and with 1,600 troops there, some will inevitably be killed.

Either (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lentinel on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:14:15 AM EST

Mr. Obama is ignorant of the facts you have presented and doesn't know what he's getting us into, or he knows full well what he is getting us into.

One alternative does not speak well of his knowledge of history, and the other alternative does not speak well of his integrity.


: But, remember (5.00 / 4) (#29)
by KeysDan on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:21:47 PM EST

Candidate Obama said that he is not against all wars, just "dumb wars." So, this, apparently, is judged a smart war. Or, he has judged the citizenry as dumb about war.

Actually, the Korean War was nothing ... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:30:19 AM EST

... like Vietnam, in that it was not a counterinsurgency campaign. While there was a tremendous fluidity of movement during the first eight months of conflict as U.N. and Communist armies twice advanced and retreated up and down the Korean peninsula, there were nevertheless clearly defined front lines throughout the conflict. Further, those battle lines became particularly pronounced as the war descended into stalemate in late 1951.

Ever heard of the "Pusan Perimeter"? Further, how do you think the current border between North and South Korea got put in place? That border is the 1953 cease-fire line.

Aloha.


"Those who (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by Zorba on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:30:39 PM EST

cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war."


Yes (none / 0) (#32)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:38:31 PM EST

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

I always wonder if that famous statement really has any basis in fact. It would also seem true that those who remember the past are locked into making decisions that may not be the best.

Sometimes a fresh look at things, unburdened by history, can yield a creative result better than the standard knee-jerk response dictated by history.


: Yes, maybe (5.00 / 3) (#38)
by KeysDan on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 02:42:46 PM EST

the interpretation and application of history is key. There may not be anything off in the history, per se, but in its assessment and application to the new situation. Never-the-less, an historical perspective for guidance should be a part of study and decisions.
In the instant case of Iraq, we are not really dealing with happenings in the Bronze Age. The current situation can benefit from being informed by experiences that ended (or paused) as recently as 2011.
It has been mildly interesting to observe that some of the advocates for war in Iraq in 2002 are advocates once again. And, not all have the merit of consistency, right or wrong. Some, expressed regrets for their positions when things went south--we were wrong. But, now they have recanted. That was then and this is now. Who bothers with that pesky history, anyhow.

Chelsea Manning Speaks on ISIS (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:13:09 AM EST

Chelsea Manning, the US army soldier who worked as an intelligence analyst in Iraq before being arrested for passing state secrets to WikiLeaks, says the only way to defeat Isis is to allow the group to set up its own contained "failed `state'" where over time its fire would "die out on its own".
Writing in the Guardian, Manning says her experience as an all-source analyst near Baghdad in 2009-10 leads her to doubt the strategy being followed by the Obama administration. She warns that the US-led mission to destroy the extremist group is destined to fail because it will merely feed a "cycle of outrage, recruitment, organizing and even more fighting that goes back decades".
Presenting a radical alternative blueprint for how to deal with the extremist group, Manning argues that the best way to degrade Isis is to allow it to set up a failed "state" within a clearly demarcated territory. There, Isis would gradually become unpopular and unable to govern, she predicts, and the ideology of its leadership would be discredited in the region, potentially forever.
"Eventually, if they are properly contained, I believe that Isis will not be able to sustain itself on rapid growth alone, and will begin to fracture internally. The organization will begin to disintegrate into several smaller, uncoordinated entities - ultimately failing in their objective of creating a strong state."

the guardian

I'm inclined to agree... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:22:35 AM EST

with Ms. Manning...ISIS is doomed to fail, if we give them enough rope. It will be bloody and ugly prior to thaty inevitable failure, no doubt, but blood and ugliness are a given. We need not add to it.


I agree also.... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:13:29 PM EST

this is also my strategy for dealing with the Tea Party. Give them one state all their own. Mississippi maybe.


I think the logic... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by kdog on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 02:32:30 PM EST

applies to any group of dunces...give them what they want and they will suffer what they want.


Could (none / 0) (#40)
by lentinel on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:18:19 PM EST

we add Texas to the deal?


You beat me (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:19:05 PM EST

No, you may not. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Angel on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 06:03:23 PM EST

Are you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by lentinel on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 06:50:14 PM EST

a Texan?

Please accept my apology.


: Yes. Austinite. You are forgiven. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Angel on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:14:03 PM EST

How does Chelsea Manning know (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 06:54:01 PM EST

That isn't part of the Obama strategy?

That's what is sad about this particular analysis. None of us knows what the strategy is and we can't, because nothing is dumber than to reveal your strategy to the enemy. None of us who aren't key players gets to know. Sorry, you don't let the enemy know how you are coming after them and your strategy and your goals.

None of us knows if Obama's goal is to push ISIL into a contained state made up of Sunnis, and then letting it fail while destroying any ISIL that attempt to move beyond the contained state.

It's a great plan, if it is doable. Don't for one minute think it isn't on the table. One thing I know about today's military, every decent plan is on the table. The other thing I know, when we are going after such organizations like ISIL...you and I don't get to know the plan or the strategy, and neither does Chelsea Manning.


Good Point: Secrets are Bad (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by squeaky on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 07:44:18 PM EST

The Solution to ISIS Is the First Amendment

As the elite panic about ISIS -- the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant -- continues apace, it's worth looking at how violations of the First Amendment have allowed this group to flourish, and just generally screw up US policy-making. The gist of the problem is that Americans have been lied to for years about our foreign policy, and these lies have now created binding policy constraints on our leaders which make it impossible to eliminate groups like ISIS...
It clearly is. In other words, explicit government censorship combined with propaganda helped prevent the public from having a full discussion of what 9/11 meant, and what this event implied for our government's policies. Explicit censorship, under the guise of national security, continues today. While there are people in the U.S. government who know which Saudis financed and organized 9/11, the public at large does not.
No government official can say `this person funded Al Qaeda in 2001, he might be funding ISIS now', because that would reveal classified information. He or she can't even say that to the wrong Congressman or bureaucrat that has classified clearance, because that could annoy his or her superior and cause him to lose his job. Being thrown out of the national security state, a state of 5 million people with special clearances, is painful and can, as Edward Snowden recognized, lead to banishment or lifelong imprisonment...
The public cannot make well-informed decisions about national security choices because information critical to such choices is withheld from them. It is withheld from them at the source, through the classification-censorship process, then by obfuscations in the salons and think tanks of DC and New York, and then finally through the bottleneck of the mass media itself.

Matt Stoller


: A 5 for you (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 08:03:08 PM EST

Though I am caught between a rock and a hard place. It is bull, and wrong, and broken when terrorist financiers can hide. But then there are the leaks. The classified things that everyone needs to know get leaked. But who decides? Who watches the watchers? I dunno
This administration though, it doesn't slip up. If you want to know what they are really doing read the small report from DOD or Pentagon anonymous source on page 6 or page 13. They leave tiny blurbs all around so nobody can ever point a finger at them and say they lied. You just have to want to read the leaked one paragraph buried behind the hyperbolic front pages.

: And the selected members of Congress must (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 08:06:23 PM EST

Be briefed. It is in title 50. Can't remember exactly who gets briefed, but select members of Congress must be briefed. They are in the loop.

Obama speaking now (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 11:15:02 AM EST

He really could not be more clear or emphatic about no ground troops.

On arming and training Syrian rebels.... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:16:42 PM EST

That just seems insane to me. A sure recipe for 9/11/2024.

: agreee, It is pure folly (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:50:26 PM EST

Pushback (none / 0) (#1)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:44:28 PM EST

Democrats on Capitol Hill also looked to dismiss any concerns raised by Dempsey's testimony.
Asked whether Dempsey's comments opened up the possibility of U.S. ground troops being deployed, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said "No."
"He [Dempsey] said they're not needed," Levin told reporters.
"Every military leader is going to say, if there's a change in circumstances he's gonna be open to a different recommendation. That doesn't mean he suggested they may be needed," Levin said.
"He suggested that if, in fact, they are needed in the future ... he is open to making a different recommendation."
The State Department said those who had seized on Dempsey's comments were "parsing his words a little bit."
"The president has been very clear we will not have troops on the ground in combat roles, period," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. "That is an underlying principle of our actions in Iraq.
"I think there was a long exchange this morning about what the advisers are doing, but again, we've been very clear about the combat-boots-on-the-ground question," she added.

the Hill

That is how I interpreted Dempsey (none / 0) (#49)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:16:54 PM EST

too, at least the part quoted above. He implies that if circumstances change, his opinion would change.

And 'combat roles' is a very well defined term in the military, as I'm sure MT can elaborate. Limiting to combat role does not preclude the proverbial boots on the ground. I think Demoseynis probably correct that we can do plenty of harm to ISIL without our troops performing in combat roles.

But I think the addition of arming any part of the Syrian insurgency is just idiotic, as I said someplace else. That is going to come back to bite us. No question.


: Oops - limiting to non- combat roles, I meant! (none / 0) (#50)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:17:57 PM EST

Fortunately for the country, ... (none / 0) (#3)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 04:12:00 AM EST

... it's the president who's commander in chief of our armed forces, and as such he's the man who will determine our policy in this matter -- not the guy in that Senate hearing room today who was wearing the multiple stars on his padded shoulders.

That particular matter was settled once and for all back in April 1951, when President Harry Truman curtly informed Gen. Douglas MacArthur via telegram that he was hereby relieved of command, effective immediately.

Of course, the supercilious Beltway media has once again demonstrated to us how remarkably adept they've become in recent years at hyperventilating hyperbolically about a hypothetical, because they really should know better. Gen. Martin Dempsey is in no position to offer any such commitment, and so he didn't "open the door" to anything with his comment, save perhaps to some old-fashioned manufactured controversy.

Because quite honestly, this also isn't the guy's first time at the rodeo. And were I President Obama, I'd probably be more than a little annoyed with my JCS Chair right about now. Gen. Dempsey should have also known better than to allow himself to be baited into venturing a personal opinion like that in public.

Rather, he should have simply referred committee members to the present and already stated White House policy, in order to avoid placing both himself and the president in the awkward position of having to later clarify his remarks.

Aloha.

Because events of the last decade or so (5.00 / 4) (#10)
by Anne on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:02:34 AM EST

have compromised my ability to trust pretty much anything I hear out of the mouths of anyone associated with the government, and caused me to question agenda and motive and end-game, my first reaction to what Dempsey said was that we're being deliberately tag-teamed with opposite messages - and the one that is most distasteful to people is the one that is slowly but surely being PR'd into public acceptance via the typical use of oogedy-boogedy scare tactics. That campaign - that ISIS/ISIL is a serious threat to this country (we will all be beheaded in our beds!) - has already frightened the majority of Americans enough that it is insisting that we "do something" and has made them okay with the use of drones and airstrikes.

I feel just as I did before we went into Iraq, like I am watching, in slow motion, a terrible car accident about to happen, knowing there is nothing I can do to stop it.

I hope I'm wrong. I really, really want to be wrong.


: History supports your contention, Anne. (none / 0) (#24)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:08:13 PM EST

I'm just hoping this this time will prove the exception to the general rule. The Pentagon is always going to want to go full throttle in these types of situations. (Gen. Curtis Lemay and the Cuban Missile Crisis comes immediately to mind.) It's up to the White House to temper the brass's "enthusiasm," for lack of a better word.

Exactly (none / 0) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 08:02:31 AM EST

There's boots on the ground Donald (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:22:01 AM EST

There already are.

Because of my proximity to military mission, I have subconsciously studied how they lie. I didn't deliberately study it. After awhile, it doesn't even seem like lying, they are just trying to break it to you gently :)

Whatever infighting was going on over ISIL, it ended with the video posting of beheading American journalists. That just ended it.


The JCS Chair (none / 0) (#13)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:01:44 AM EST

has a duty to answer questions honestly, not simply parrot the president's line. This country does not need a bunch of yes men cheerleading whatever military decision the prez makes.


The JCS Chair answers to the president, ... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:12:07 PM EST

... per the military chain of command, and not to Congress. That's the president's job. I'm not saying that Gen. Dempsey should prevaricate, but it would've been a perfectly reasonable response for him to decline to answer a hypothetical, telling them only that we'll decide whether or not cross that bridge if we come to it.


I actually agree with you (none / 0) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:08:28 AM EST

But I think (hope) the president will resist any large scale involvement.
As Tracy rightly points out, there are boots on the ground.


It's hard to know what to think or (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by Anne on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:27:57 AM EST

who to believe.

Here's something from DS Wright at the FDL News Desk (bold is mine):

But General Dempsey is not alone in thinking the current military plan of airstrikes will not defeat ISIS. Few analysts inside or outside the Pentagon believe airstrikes will defeat ISIS on the ground even if those strikes expand into Syria. If ISIS is really the existential threat Obama and company have claimed (it isn't) then how can they just stop at airstrikes and trying to arm semi-friendly locals on the ground?
Once again, the use of dishonest rhetoric has entrapped President Obama. After making up absurd claims about ISIS' capability to harm America he now has to explain why he should not use every available means to destroy them. Obama came to power, in part, from expertly riding the backlash against the consequences of his predecessor lying about Iraq, now he has his own lies to deal with.

I agree with Tracy: I think it's already happening. We'll either get the "ta-da! We did it! And oh-by-the-way, we did put boots on the ground to do it and you can't be mad at us because we were victorious!" breaking news/presser - OR - we'll get the Friday afternoon, "we thought we could do it with surgical precision, but it turns out the scalpel was dull and now we can't just walk away, so we're sending more troops in to help the troops we sent that we told you we wouldn't send without telling you" quiet little announcement.

Yeesh.


: "The military plan of airstrikes (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by KeysDan on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 02:29:59 PM EST

will not defeat ISIS...even if expanded to Syria." If a military plan (i.e., a plan of military action recommended by the military) will not do the job, why do it? Trial and Error--after 13 years in Iraq? And, if the military plan adds "boots on the ground," will that do it? Can you say quagmire, General? Do you believe the average IQ of Americans is in the double digits, and falling?
I think we are evolving: aka, slow boiling the frog. It is difficult to fathom that General Dempsey was just out there on his own. His comments were not 'off the cuff,' they were a part of his written testimony, which means that his presentation was reviewed and checked for mis-statements. And, he re-itereated his position during questions: "American forces are not participating in direct combat. There is no intention of doing so,' "but, I've mentioned , though, that if I found that circumstance evolving I would, of course, change my recommendations."
My speculation ( I think no American should hesitate to guess, since our government is no more likely to be on target) is that a major presumption of no boots on the ground has changed: Arab stakeholders are pulling up stakes.
ISIS is a byproduct of the war for the soul of Islam in which the region would like to stay on the fence. Saudi Arabia would like to continue to fund both the war against ISIS and Islamist ideology that creates ISIS members. The US is the protectorate.
If there was ever a time to lead from behind, this is it. Do as little as we can (air strikes to hold ISIS at abeyance, for example) and force the Arab countries to step up, put sandals on the ground, fly those planes we sold them, and then we should strive to manage and balance the regional coalitions.

I figure this is why he invited (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:01:07 AM EST

All the journalists over the other day.

It has been leaked that Special Forces are going to be used, and are probably already being used. And American journalists aren't going to give the administration a pass on saying advisors aren't boots on the ground when the advisors fight alongside the troops they are training. Even though the press did give the administration a pass as we left Iraq when it came down to what military advisors "advising" Iraq troops really did.

It was only a matter of time before it was going to be reported that there are sort of, kind of, ...okay, there are American boots on the ground. There are also UK, Canadian, Australian, and lots of other Special Forces boots on the ground with them too.

I think the "boots on the ground" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:11:22 PM EST

formulation is so simplistic...needs to be redefined as 'invasion forces', or 'occupational forces' or something like that. I keep saying that and no one in the press listens. I just know we are going to be subjected to 4 years of 'gotcha' questions that start with "You said there would be no boots on the ground...."


: Yup :) (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:35:54 PM EST

No problem (none / 0) (#12)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 09:55:56 AM EST

Those advisors have to wear flip flops.


Have you tried to run in a wet flip flop? (none / 0) (#19)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:37:13 AM EST

Not just run away, but run forward too. It is a great mess of slippery appendages :)


Speaking of flip flops... (5.00 / 8) (#21)
by fishcamp on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 11:21:32 AM EST

Years ago I had lost mine while body surfing in Maui and they wouldn't let me on the airplane back to Honolulu without shoes so I put my fins on, walked backwards up the stairs and down the aisle to my seat. All the passengers and the pilot stood and cheered. I was a bit embarrassed .


: That... (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by sj on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 11:41:44 AM EST

... is awesome.

: How truly wonderful (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by MO Blue on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 12:00:44 PM EST

No wonder you got a standing ovation.

No matter what you make think (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 10:35:39 AM EST

We can only win with boots on the ground.

Preceded by a bombing camping that will kill lots and lots of people.

If we don't want that then we shouldn't go in.

we're not going in (none / 0) (#33)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:49:36 PM EST

we're striking from the air. And doing surveillance. And probably going to provide training to Iraqi army and Syrian rebels. The rebel training will take place in Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Why not provide some realistic and constructive solutions, like how to keep the equipment we are going to provide from ending up in control of ISIS, instead of beating the war drum?


We are already in Jeralyn (none / 0) (#35)
by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 01:53:15 PM EST

A journalist let the cat out of that bag tweeting from Turkey. Your Special Forces are already in there. It is now a matter of how many how often. And military "trainers" and "advisors" fought beside the troops they "trained" in Iraq. You are already in, you just don't officially know it yet.


Exactly (none / 0) (#39)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 17, 2014 at 03:16:12 PM EST

There is no way to keep control of the equipment after we turn it over if we leave.

I wish there was.

And I doubt that either the SA or Jordan will be willing to really expend blood and treasure for Iraq.

And even Iraq doesn't want us to attack Syria per Abadi's comments.

I think it was Powell who said that unless we want to use all of our power we should use none of it.

Korea, Vietnam and Iraq proves him right.


Good point. (none / 0) (#51)
by Green26 on Fri Sep 19, 2014 at 10:12:05 PM EST

Once we leave, we lose control of equipment. We also lose control over the leadership.

As I have said before, Obama made a huge mistake, in my opinion, completely leaving Iraq when things were pretty good, in terms of driving Al Qaeda out and fewer bombings, etc. Leaving Iraq allowed Maliki to immediately turn on the Sunnis in a much bigger way. He went after a big Sunni leader the day the US departed.

The US is still in Europe following WWII and still in Korea since the 50s.

While Obama seems to be an anti-war guy generally, he also let politics further dictate his position.

In addition, the US should have immediately bombed the equipment departing for Syria when ISIS took over northern Iraq. Again, Obama's anti-war instincts, or whatever it is, combined with politics, caused him not to react immediately. Now the job of containing or defeating ISIS is much harder, because they seized so much equipment.


Without a new SOFA, ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Yman on Sat Sep 20, 2014 at 10:07:07 AM EST

... which the Iraqis were not going to provide with immunity for US soldiers, it wasn't Obama's choice to make.

Take it up with your boy GW.


And who wants there family member (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 20, 2014 at 10:10:34 AM EST

Serving the Iraqi government? I don't. I do my best to be open minded but my mind won't open that far. And I doubt it should. My friends and family stay under the jurisdiction of the United States government.


: Wrong their :) Oops (none / 0) (#54)
by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 20, 2014 at 10:21:11 AM EST

SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#56)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Oct 02, 2014 at 08:27:12 AM EST