Ground Forces In Iraq.. No…..yes……maybe…… Us Policy A Train Wreck

[Jackson]

Ground Forces in Iraq.. No…..Yes……Maybe…… US Policy a Train Wreck


Speaking at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry underscored the message that "U.S. ground troops will not be sent into combat in this conflict."

Despite these pledges, Dempsey on Tuesday appeared to challenge the administration position when, during testimony before a Senate committee, he said he might recommend U.S. ground troops if Obama's current strategy doesn't work.

"My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward," Dempsey said. "I believe that will prove true, 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."

Dempsey provided one example of a scenario where he might recommend U.S. ground forces, saying they could be used to help Kurdish and Iraqi forces retake Mosul, now controlled by the Islamic State, or ISIS, by accompanying them or providing close-combat advice.

The remarks caused controversy in Washington as well as Baghdad.

Iraq's new prime minister dismissed the notion that the struggle could lead to U.S. forces again fighting on the ground in his country.

"Not only is it not necessary, we don't want them. We won't allow them," Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi also said Democrats "are not supporting combat troops."

While Obama faces pressure from his left flank not to open the door to ground troops, he also faces pressure from more hawkish officials to keep that option open.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates told CBS News that "there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in the strategy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

White House No combat role but US troops could forward deploy with Iraqis Fox News Video

Depends what works out. The political polls, Obama's political agenda or the military planning for success. And if it is Tuesday or Thursday.

 

[Claudette]

No for sure.

Let the Arab League do something about ISIS. Its Muslim killing Muslim and I for one could give shit one.

We left Iraq with its own country and they lost it. Tough shit.

No way should we sacrifice anymore of our young men and women in that country.

Let em butcher each other.

 

[The Rabbi]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Jackson]

No for sure.

Let the Arab League do something about ISIS. Its Muslim killing Muslim and I for one could give shit one.

We left Iraq with its own country and they lost it. Tough shit.

No way should we sacrifice anymore of our young men and women in that country.

Let em butcher each other.

I agree with you Claudette, but what do you bet Obama has no such coalition members that will fight on the ground against ISIS let alone fight in the air. Do you notice Kerry will not announce just who our coalition members are and under what parameters they are working? What do you bet we have a very weak coalition of the willing.

 

[Jackson]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

It already has, Obama is in charge.

 

[saveliberty]

I heard ISIS has til Friday to sign up for Obamacare or they will have to pay a penalty.

 

[MisterBeale]

They are lying. Combat troops are already on the ground. It's a moot point.

When are troops 'advisers' and when are they 'boots on the ground'?
When are troops advisers when boots on the ground - CNN.com

But if Obama were to approve putting military advisers in "close combat roles," the risk of American casualties would increase -- regardless of whether those troops are firing weapons themselves or advising Iraqi forces who are.

That's because a combat support role can turn into combat "in a heartbeat," retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks said.

"Enemy advances are not distinctive, you could suddenly be in the midst of a really hairy dogfight and you think you're just refueling trucks," Marks said.

Ultimately the distinction between boots on the ground and troops in advisory roles is semantic, retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona said on CNN.

"Right now we've got young American men and women putting their lives on the line dropping bombs," Francona said. "We've got people in combat, I think we should just say that."

And Dempsey produced a quick and direct response when Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, asked Dempsey whether U.S. pilots dropping bombs over Iraq are in a combat mission and whether the U.S. would "put boots on the ground" to rescue a downed pilot.

"Yes and yes," Dempsey confirmed.

Inhofe also lasered in on Obama's "boots on the ground" distinction later Tuesday in an interview with CNN.

"The President's just flat not telling the truth. We already have boots on the ground there," said Inhofe, a chief political antagonist of the White House. "He knows we're going to have to have boots on the ground. Let's just go ahead and face it and admit we're in a war and you just don't win a war unless you're out there fighting."

 

[Ava]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

It already has, Obama is in charge.

 

[blastoff]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

Well for example Barry might miss a short putt on No. 6.

 

[Jackson]

They are lying. Combat troops are already on the ground. It's a moot point.

When are troops 'advisers' and when are they 'boots on the ground'?
When are troops advisers when boots on the ground - CNN.com

But if Obama were to approve putting military advisers in "close combat roles," the risk of American casualties would increase -- regardless of whether those troops are firing weapons themselves or advising Iraqi forces who are.

That's because a combat support role can turn into combat "in a heartbeat," retired Gen. James "Spider" Marks said.

"Enemy advances are not distinctive, you could suddenly be in the midst of a really hairy dogfight and you think you're just refueling trucks," Marks said.

Ultimately the distinction between boots on the ground and troops in advisory roles is semantic, retired Lt. Col. Rick Francona said on CNN.

"Right now we've got young American men and women putting their lives on the line dropping bombs," Francona said. "We've got people in combat, I think we should just say that."

And Dempsey produced a quick and direct response when Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, asked Dempsey whether U.S. pilots dropping bombs over Iraq are in a combat mission and whether the U.S. would "put boots on the ground" to rescue a downed pilot.

"Yes and yes," Dempsey confirmed.

Inhofe also lasered in on Obama's "boots on the ground" distinction later Tuesday in an interview with CNN.

"The President's just flat not telling the truth. We already have boots on the ground there," said Inhofe, a chief political antagonist of the White House. "He knows we're going to have to have boots on the ground. Let's just go ahead and face it and admit we're in a war and you just don't win a war unless you're out there fighting."

Putting a few hundred ground troops in the area is like supplying them with Oregon Ducks Football uniforms. Make the damn targets! Either put enough ground troops to adequately fight the enemy with coalition fighters to complete the mission and get out.

 

[Freemason9]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

I sincerely hope that this time we have enough wisdom and restraint in the White House to avoid yet another "war." Since the Bush/Cheney wars of the last decade, the entire Middle East has descended further into chaos, disarray, and brutality. It's time the U.S. leaves; we must not become another U.S.S.R.

For those many, many ignorant Americans out there, there is ONE MAIN PROBLEM in the Middle East today--foreign invaders. The foreigners must leave before anything can begin to mend in that land.

Those folks were "civilized" a full two millenia before the rest of the world. We need to leave them alone to try it again.

Oil, and the lust for it, has been their undoing.

 

[Discombobulated]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

You and the President have that much in common.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no coalition. Partly because no country that shows an indication of being in the coalition trusts obama.

 

[Discombobulated]

There is no coalition. Partly because no country that shows an indication of being in the coalition trusts obama.

Why do you idiots all constantly engage in idle speculation all the time?

 

[The Rabbi]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

I sincerely hope that this time we have enough wisdom and restraint in the White House to avoid yet another "war." Since the Bush/Cheney wars of the last decade, the entire Middle East has descended further into chaos, disarray, and brutality. It's time the U.S. leaves; we must not become another U.S.S.R.

For those many, many ignorant Americans out there, there is ONE MAIN PROBLEM in the Middle East today--foreign invaders. The foreigners must leave before anything can begin to mend in that land.

Those folks were "civilized" a full two millenia before the rest of the world. We need to leave them alone to try it again.

Oil, and the lust for it, has been their undoing.

OK,when the Chechens, Pakistanis, Somalis, etc leave then we will too. How's that?
FOr a refresher, the ME was fine at the end of the Bush administration. Iraq had staged 2 free and fair elections--probably fairer than the last US presidential election as Iraqis needed ID to vote. Libya was disarmed of its nuclear program. Kuwait was allowing us a base. The rest of the place was under stable authoritarian rule.
Then Obama took office and all hell broke loose.

 

[The Rabbi]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

You and the President have that much in common.

That's why I'm not running this war, genius. What is Obama's excuse?

 

[Discombobulated]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

I sincerely hope that this time we have enough wisdom and restraint in the White House to avoid yet another "war." Since the Bush/Cheney wars of the last decade, the entire Middle East has descended further into chaos, disarray, and brutality. It's time the U.S. leaves; we must not become another U.S.S.R.

For those many, many ignorant Americans out there, there is ONE MAIN PROBLEM in the Middle East today--foreign invaders. The foreigners must leave before anything can begin to mend in that land.

Those folks were "civilized" a full two millenia before the rest of the world. We need to leave them alone to try it again.

Oil, and the lust for it, has been their undoing.

OK,when the Chechens, Pakistanis, Somalis, etc leave then we will too. How's that?
FOr a refresher, the ME was fine at the end of the Bush administration. Iraq had staged 2 free and fair elections--probably fairer than the last US presidential election as Iraqis needed ID to vote. Libya was disarmed of its nuclear program. Kuwait was allowing us a base. The rest of the place was under stable authoritarian rule.
Then Obama took office and all hell broke loose.

The middle east was fine? Too funny.

 

[Discombobulated]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

You and the President have that much in common.

That's why I'm not running this war, genius. What is Obama's excuse?

And yet you have plenty of stupid opinions based on mindless speculation. What's your excuse for that?

 

[The Rabbi]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

You and the President have that much in common.

That's why I'm not running this war, genius. What is Obama's excuse?

And yet you have plenty of stupid opinions based on mindless speculation. What's your excuse for that?

Theyre hardly stupid opinions and hardly based on mindless speculation.
Care to cite even one example?

And again what is Obama's excuse?

 

[The Rabbi]

This administration has no clue. Now I read that Obama will be personally directing the war. This is someone with zero experience of war, zero knowledge of the military, zero understanding of strategy or tactics. What could possibly go wrong?

I sincerely hope that this time we have enough wisdom and restraint in the White House to avoid yet another "war." Since the Bush/Cheney wars of the last decade, the entire Middle East has descended further into chaos, disarray, and brutality. It's time the U.S. leaves; we must not become another U.S.S.R.

For those many, many ignorant Americans out there, there is ONE MAIN PROBLEM in the Middle East today--foreign invaders. The foreigners must leave before anything can begin to mend in that land.

Those folks were "civilized" a full two millenia before the rest of the world. We need to leave them alone to try it again.

Oil, and the lust for it, has been their undoing.

OK,when the Chechens, Pakistanis, Somalis, etc leave then we will too. How's that?
FOr a refresher, the ME was fine at the end of the Bush administration. Iraq had staged 2 free and fair elections--probably fairer than the last US presidential election as Iraqis needed ID to vote. Libya was disarmed of its nuclear program. Kuwait was allowing us a base. The rest of the place was under stable authoritarian rule.
Then Obama took office and all hell broke loose.

The middle east was fine? Too funny.

Proof? Oh yeah, you dont have any.