Top general: U.S. ground troops possible in Iraq

The USA incrementally being sucked into another Vietnam type war. Not quite sure why they are there, advisors are now being called "combat advisors", no end goal other than to "degrade and destroy" ISIS. At what point can they say job done, let's go home? The answer is at no point as there is no endgame. This latest war will stop, as the Vietnam war did, when it is no longer political expedient to carry on.

Obama's unilateral war requires the consent of the US Congress and according to the old Obama, by the UN security council. What happened to the old rules that Obama and the Left used for going to war?

So now the truth comes out.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Army Gen. Martin Dempsey declared

There are already 1,600 American troops in Iraq. Note that there is still no status of forces agreement.

Obama “will not deploy ground troops in a combat role into Iraq or Syria,” said spokesman Josh Earnest.

So if an American aircraft is down in Iraq or Syria, Obama will not send combat ready personnel to retrieve the pilot and crew? I hope he is lying about this statement. What about if the US is providing air support to the Iraqi's and they are getting slaughtered by ISIS? No combat support?

Obama is lying to America in the same in your face manner as he did when he said, "if you like your insurance you can keep it." He is basically pursuing a policy of containment hoping to keep ISIS from getting out of hand until his term ends in 2.5 years. This policy is doomed to failure as noted by his own Joint Chiefs Chairman. He will have to send in special ops forces to keep ISIS contained.

"Just when I thought I was out . . . they pull me back in."

Deja vu, and "told you so".

US agitation to distract the sheeple and keep the current congressional liars in the seat of power.

The sheeple are easily manipulated into taking up arms.

Wolfpack Sep. 17, 2014 - 08:02AM JST So if an American aircraft is down in Iraq or Syria, Obama will not send combat ready personnel to retrieve the pilot and crew? I hope he is lying about this statement. What about if the US is providing air support to the Iraqi's and they are getting slaughtered by ISIS? No combat support?

The problem with Obama’s insistence on a limited definition, or on no definition, is that Obama isn’t the only one who’s making definitions and decisions in this battle. A lack of American definition gives the other side an opportunity to make its own definition the important one. Obama might want it to be a limited battle, but what if ISIS expands it? Obama might want the coalition to bear most of the brunt, but if it can’t or won’t? Obama might want to eradicate ISIS from the air, but what if ISIS persists and makes gains? What if ISIS conquers more areas and rules more territory, would that make it a war? What if ISIS takes over a whole country, would that be reason enough to involve American troops in the fight? What if ISIS strikes in the U.S., would that be a reason to change the strategy?

I fight for the men I've held in my arms, dying on foreign soil! I fight for their wives and children, whose names I heard whispered in their last breath. I fight for we few who did come home, only to find our country full of strangers wearing familiar faces. I fight for my people impoverished to pay the debts of a Government too weak to rule them, yet brands them criminals for wanting to rule themselves! I fight so that all the fighting I've already done hasn't been for nothing! I fight... because I must."

Why is anybody surprised by this. Anyone with half a brain could foresee that using Drones and air strikes is only going to slow down and limit ISIS. If you want to kill them, then you need to send in ground troops and not just ANY ground troops, these operations need special forces to surgically target these people, in particular the senior top heads. NO easy task for sure.

@sfjp330

What if ISIS takes over a whole country, would that be reason enough to involve American troops in the fight? What if ISIS strikes in the U.S., would that be a reason to change the strategy?

So that is the conundrum, damned if you do and damned if you don't. I firmly believe ISIS is already in the US, they are probably sleeper cells and waiting for the optimum moment. Either way, now or later, they will launch some form of an attack and it's better to confront that problem now rather than later when it will be virtually impossible to stop them.

It seems like American ground troops would have to go there sooner or later though president says never dispatch. Only airstrikes seem almost nothing unless soldiers take over lands and towns and put on flags there.

Let them be. Further commitment will all end badly as ALL of the previous interventions have.

Rinse and Repeat.... we've been here before and it doesn't work. Back out now, go home let ISIS do what it does and the regional countries deal with them. But wait you say...... we need to stop them now. Stop who? says I. There are so many factions and haters swirling around in that region, it's Impossible to determine who is who from one day to the next. Back out now, let whatever ensues happen, then formulate a plan to combat the end results. The US can't even fight terrorism at home under the current politically correct, don't offend anyone mentality. There is not a snowballs chance in Hades of doing so until we are willing to scrutinize everyone coming from countries that have terrorists groups freely roaming the country. The Middle East Countries seem unwilling to deal with the terrorist problem, let it grow until it forces them to do so or go under. The more ISIS consolidates, the bigger and clearer the target becomes when it is time to act. When will the United States learn the simple truth; You can't give freedom to people who do not want it or do not know what it is. Freedom has to be yearned for, fought for, and cherished. When you are killing your neighbor because he uses the wrong color prayer rug, that is a non starter on the path from the get go.

OMG I am stunned. What would make them think they need ground troops? Is it because 30,000 troops in rpg proof tanks and hummers, that are also bullet proof, fled away from 900 men in standard bullet shredding cars?

It was the first thing I said. The plan will fail once they get near the city's / main areas. Just look at how long America trained the Iraq troops. When a gun come up with the idea to build a cement wall all the way around "Sadr City" make then run out of food, weapons,. Look at what happened when Iraq troops entered at a point shit them self's and pulled back. I remember seeing a U.S soldier trying to tell them where to go and so on. In the end he said F it., follow me then. They didn't and U.S troops had 2 pull forward. I think it was to test the Iraq troops, they they pulled out.

There is now way they can enter a city and fight like America did in Fallujah. That's mission impossible. If they can even come up with that strategy, then it takes weeks later to correct it, it's worrying that they didn't know from the start, they 100% could and would not be able to do it..................I new that from the start.

If you know Obama like I know him personally think the opposite of what he says then you will get the real outcome of what he really means. For example the news media got on Obama because he said he didn't have a plan when in fact he did have one now we know what it is.

@bass4funk but yet again people voting down, even after u said it the other day "It's confirmed" what we said :). The strategy is weak............. U. S troops must go in. I like how you get voted down, but then days after, even the U.S chief of staff agrees with you any sees the problem.

It's that of publicly they don't want to panic the public"into a thinking" a massive Iraq was beginning to happen, again.

The generals said it again " boots on the ground are possible". Last time, for his self glory, Obama rejected their requested to maintain some U.S. force in Iraq. He dragged his feet on confronting Muslim extremists until two heads were beheaded. ISIS has shown the world how ugly and vicious they can be. His back against the wall, Obama spins from managing to destroy (no war?) ISIS from the air with his no booths on the ground coalition? Obama plays politics thus avoiding telling the truth. Unlike previous wars in Asia, these Muslim extremists inspire by religious conviction without border or boundary. They pursue the "caliphate" as the ultimate goal of converting the whole world to Islam by all means. Muslim had marched to conquer throughout history, for many parts of the world belong to them through wars and occupation. Maybe it is time for Obamabots to wake up and stop worshiping the false image and telling him to get real. Unlike Vietnam war, the world is in the long haul in dealing with ISIS, ISIL,...and many more to come. Without any resolve against them, our civilization is at stake. Bush almost got them under control, Obama walked away and let monsters Al Qaeda morphed into ISIS of today.

" He asked how U.S. forces would respond in the event Assad’s air force bombed the U.S.-trained forces. “We will help them, and we will support them,” Hagel eventually said. "

Oh, the brilliance of this plan. So... Hagel wants to bomb a) ISIS and b) the Syrian troops who are fighting ISIS. While giving weapons to other Jihadis who fight Syrian troops, and hopefull occasionally also fight ISIS.

Yep, sounds like a plan. What are these guys drinking?

He can make all the recommendations he wants: there is a reason McCain's campaign went over like a lead balloon...

McCain's advice is meaningless. always suspected this would end up with troops on the ground. already over 2,000 "advisors" in the Caliphate. What a total mess. agree they should just leave these loons and the locals to sort things out. the threat to the US and its allies does not diminish thru bombing and supporting their "allies" in the middle east.

There will be no COMBAT troops on the ground, Pres. Obama has said that over and over. Support troops, logistics, advisory YES. COMBAT NO! How many times does he have to say it?

OMG boys, stop playing with "deep heat".

McCain thinks he can solve any problem in the world by bombing it. The guy is as clueless about reality as Obama is. Why don´t these guys take the time to read up about the history and cultural background of the region? But maybe their entourage of sycophantic advisors prevents that.

@WilliB Joe the plumber could do a better job, then u and or Obama.

ScottRyan:

" @WilliB Joe the plumber could do a better job, then u and or Obama. "

LOL, I can return that verbatim to you. You are the one who thinks this some kind of zero-sum game that you can solve with the the military and with ID-cards, right?

@WilliB I already told you that's just 1 from a 100. What, you think they killed 2,000 Taliban men in 2 months in the 1 area, with id cards..... please. Setting up Traps chump. Show them what they want. If they see 30 cars driving on 1 road 18 a hour a day, where do you think they will try planting an IED bomb? Yep trap dead 2,000 less ID cards.

Hay WilliB. When the Taliban attack the troops in bases in the min of Afghanistan, how do you kill them when they know it takes 30 min to send a drone of jet fighter out there to kill them? So they attacked then left before they got any where near there?

Well its not made public, but I say you would make a new system / strategy, that uses some satellites. Once you're attacked you call up instant satellite support. The Taliban think they're safe when they attack because air support is 1 hours away, but satellite support is almost instant, and will track them and direct the jet fighters to their location. Now its a new strategy, that will help all groups of troops under attack. All MRAPs and so on, will have GPS to talk instantly with the satellite to follow them. Kill them or watch them take you back to their bases?

Its ok champ, you have know idea.

There should be two options. Either stay out altogether and let the locals settle things, or go in 100% and make Iraq the 51st state of America. We already know "regime change", and "peace-keeping" don't work, too many people are killed "keeping the peace", and the new regime is often as bad or worse than the one which was toppled.

Going into the middle east gives muslim leaders a target to direct their followers against. Leave them alone, and they can then fight against each other. With any luck, most or all of them will find the martyrdoms they are seeking.

ScottR:

Just wait and see how Afghanistan blows up once Obama and Nato go home. nuff said.

@WilliB maybe, maybe not. If it does blow up, it will save the west $60 billion pa. If we are kicked out, we must say now "all funding is 100% cut off". NATO and U.S sign a pack now, before they decide. This way they 100% know, there deciding there own fates 2 :).

I'm not saying your wrong, i am just saying the strategy's are there 2 work and beat them. Now u know why i said making a new Constitution "in that way" is a............... must do.

Going into Iraq again is nothing more than a fool's errand.

Stop sending money and weapons to the region. Of course, the mimilitary-industrial complex would never accept that. That's who is truly running this quagmire.

Just wait and see how Afghanistan blows up once Obama and Nato go home. nuff said.

What makes you think the US is ever going home? We are still in Germany, still in Japan. Still in Korea.

The US never goes home. We get thrown out. Like in Vietnam.

*

JTDanManSEP. 18, 2014 - 12:03AM JST Just wait and see how Afghanistan blows up once Obama and Nato go home. nuff said.

What makes you think the US is ever going home? We are still in Germany, still in Japan. Still in Korea.

The US never goes home. We get thrown out. Like in Vietnam.*

And was Germany better of with the US there? How about Japan? Do you think Korea is better off? WIth post war USSR US in europe was the only deterrent. With the PRC recently Japan has a strong friend. Korea would have been overrun just like Vietnam when we decided to leave. And we saw mass emigration afterwards.

The US has been THE USSR deterrent and destroyer. The US WILL limit China's expansion efforts. The US will combat ANY aggression directed to the USA (once we have a real leader in office again).