PDA

View Full Version : U.S. General open to ground force as option in Iraq



Green Arrow
09-17-2014, 03:52 PM
Via New York Times (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/world/middleeast/isis-airstrikes-united-states-coalition.html?_r=0&referrer=):


WASHINGTON — President Obama’s top military adviser said Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States forces in ground operations against Islamic extremists in Iraq if airstrikes proved insufficient, opening the door to a riskier, more expansive American combat role than the president has publicly outlined.

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while he was confident that an American-led coalition would defeat the Islamic State, he would not foreclose the possibility of asking Mr. Obama to send American troops to fight the militants on the ground — something Mr. Obama has ruled out.


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

I said many times before this all started that we would end up with boots on the ground in Iraq and another 10 year plus war. We already knew some Senators favored boots on the ground, and now we have SecState John Kerry (http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kerry-syria-senate-testimony-boots-on-ground-2013-9) and Gen. Martin Dempsey suggesting boots on the ground, not just in Iraq, but in Syria as well. President Obama refuses to consider it before the November elections because he knows it would be disastrous for the Democrats' chances of keeping the Senate, but either way, we will eventually have boots on the ground, now that we have committed to the destruction of ISIL.

The only question now, is whether we'll have boots on the ground before November, or after.


(Note to the uninformed: Yes, I realize that around 2,000 troops are already on the ground in Iraq. "Boots on the ground" is a term of art (http://i.word.com/idictionary/term%20of%20art) that refers specifically to combat troops. The 2,000 currently in Iraq are not, officially, combat troops.)

Peter1469
09-17-2014, 03:56 PM
Basically, the only way to do what Obama says his strategy is - to degrade and destroy ISIL, US combat troops have to be on the ground. A lots of them. We had 150K troops in Iraq at the height of the surge, and we only pacified Iraq with the help of the Anbar Awakening. Then, the Iraqi government couldn't last long without us.

Ransom
09-17-2014, 03:59 PM
Meaning......we never should have left in the first place....after all....we'd just gotten there.

PolWatch
09-17-2014, 04:00 PM
I know it won't do any good, but its time to start e-mailing our representatives, telling them we do not support more military intervention in the ME.

Green Arrow
09-17-2014, 04:10 PM
Meaning......we never should have left in the first place....after all....we'd just gotten there.

No, meaning we never should have broken it in the first place. You neocons need to stop thinking in one dimension. The world is three dimensional.

Bob
09-17-2014, 04:16 PM
(Note to the uninformed: Yes, I realize that around 2,000 troops are already on the ground in Iraq. "Boots on the ground" is a term of art (http://i.word.com/idictionary/term of art) that refers specifically to combat troops. The 2,000 currently in Iraq are not, officially, combat troops.)

Every Army or Marine goes through basic trainng. This is to make them all combat troops.

Explain to us all whom those non combat troops are? Cooks? Medics? Chaplin corps?

What makes a well trained combat trooper a non combat trooper?

Bob
09-17-2014, 04:21 PM
No, meaning we never should have broken it in the first place. You neocons need to stop thinking in one dimension. The world is three dimensional.

Neocons must be a bad name. None of you tell us who they are. We see no proof you know one from a republican or Democrat.

Bush had a mission.

As we have told you over and over, it began in earnest when Clinton was president. Bush arrived to find laws on the books to eliminate Saddam as the thug dictator. Congress and Clinton had openly debated it.

The idea Bush had was he could kick out Saddam, assemble our troops for a fast exit and after doing very little war damage, get back to the USA.

Bush turned it over to Iraq just as fast as he could.

Bad things took place about a year into the deal. When some Iraqis fought, the Army of Iraq was very weak and not trained. So to save Iraq, Bush had to fight others.

Troops always loved Bush as much as one can love some president. Today they despise Obama.

Ransom
09-17-2014, 04:21 PM
No, meaning we never should have broken it in the first place. You neocons need to stop thinking in one dimension. The world is three dimensional.

I know. All three cross the broad spectrum of opinions in here.

Idiots-Fence Sitters-Ransom

Bob
09-17-2014, 04:28 PM
I know it won't do any good, but its time to start e-mailing our representatives, telling them we do not support more military intervention in the ME.

I guess we can walk away from Iraq and let the radicals just run the country as if we have no conscience.

Bob
09-17-2014, 04:30 PM
Basically, the only way to do what Obama says his strategy is - to degrade and destroy ISIL, US combat troops have to be on the ground. A lots of them. We had 150K troops in Iraq at the height of the surge, and we only pacified Iraq with the help of the Anbar Awakening. Then, the Iraqi government couldn't last long without us.

What went wrong with the new leadership of Iraq once we handed them the country?

Green Arrow
09-17-2014, 04:34 PM
Every Army or Marine goes through basic trainng. This is to make them all combat troops.

Explain to us all whom those non combat troops are? Cooks? Medics? Chaplin corps?

What makes a well trained combat trooper a non combat trooper?

They are not there to serve a combat role, therefore by the military's own words as well as the words of every foreign policy expert that knows their stuff, they are not combat troops or "boots on the ground."

Green Arrow
09-17-2014, 04:36 PM
Neocons must be a bad name. None of you tell us who they are. We see no proof you know one from a republican or Democrat.

I gave eight names on another thread. I can give them to you again.

And we all know you're a Bush apologist, you don't have to keep repeating the same nonsense.

Peter1469
09-17-2014, 04:40 PM
I know. All three cross the broad spectrum of opinions in here.

Idiots-Fence Sitters-Ransom

Notice: Ransom is TBed, don't respond to him in this thread.

All, read the new rules.