Pentagon denies 'mission creep' in Iraq as new U.S. troop presence reaches 650

[reddread]

Source: McClatchy Washington Bureau

"The Pentagon insisted Tuesday that there is "no mission creep” in Iraq despite the rising number of U.S. troops in the embattled country with more on the way.

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, confirmed that 650 American troops were on the ground in Iraq, all of them dispatched by President Barack Obama since June 16.

Two hundred U.S. troops sent Monday, including 100 previously staged in Kuwait, were accompanied by Army Apache attack helicopters to be based at the Baghdad airport."



Read more: http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/07/01/4006174/pentagon-denies-mission-creep.html

[hobbit709]

1. They denied the same 50 years ago too.

didn't believe them then, don't believe them now.

[old guy]

2. The more things change,

the more they stay the same.

[gwheezie]

3. I understand the threat from Isis

However short of a huge force for many years I don't see what 800 troops can do to change the situation.
My nagging thought is they may be there to buy a little time before Baghdad falls and we have to evacuate Americans. It will be a dangerous operation.

[Lrobby99]

6. Intel

I suspect a good portion of the mission there right now is gathering intel on ISIL. And providing assistance to the few native factions we can still trust, at least somewhat. Another portion is security in case the unthinkable happens and we need to evac that huge Green Zone embassy of ours. But, I bet against that happening. I also consider all the latest Gulf of Tonkin comparisons to be ill-considered at best.

[reddread]

7. laughable

650 troops holding their hands up to their ears?
Is the NSA too busy monitoring us to turn their highest tech surveillance yonder?
Yeah, the Pentagon is just always being caught with their pants down in these regions
of special interest.
it would be laughable, if dead people were funny.

[CountAllVotes]

8. Welcome to the DU Lrobby99!!

& welcome!

[SamKnause]

4. I don't

believe a word "The Pentagon" says.

History repeatedly proves that I should not !!!!!

[ballyhoo]

5. I don't believe ANYONE in

government from No. 1 to No. 9999999. This all changes the dynamic for the next election and the one after that. The light at the end of the tunnel just went out--

[Igel]

9. Simple enough to test.

Look at what the mission was.

Look at what the mission is.

Is there a change?

If the mission is "protect the embassy and its immediate environs for the safety of diplomats and workers", okay. That's the mission. If "environs" starts off meaning "10 blocks in any direction from embassy walls" and a month later means "up to 100 miles from embassy walls" it's mission creep because the terms of the mission have changed.

But the same mission can be done with a pop-gun, a few hundred Marines, with Predator drones, or with a tank division. The problem is the temptation to use the tank division in ways that a couple hundred Marines could never be used. That's standard mission creep--repurposing materiel and troops. If the drones that are missile-capable are kept near the embassy and not moved out to hit targets on a more distant battlefield, no mission creep.

In this case there were two missions. One was embassy protection. The other was advising, which I'll grant can easily include intelligence analysis and wandering around among the troops and near the battlefield for the purpose of collecting information. If drones are used to help collect data and not target the enemy, that's also not mission creep.

The main difficulty is not letting the term "mission creep" undergo extensive "definition creep" so that we condemn it as evil when it has one meaning, get used to condemning "mission creep," and reflexively continue to condemn mission creep when it's taken on an entirely different meaning. It's an informal fallacy to shift definitions mid-argument and assume that somehow the argument still is valid.

[BobbyBoring]

10. They say it will be 750 men.

That's one for each of the million dollars we spent building that monstrous monument to hubris.

[MisterP]

11. hey, where's all the "not a shot fired," "no boots on the ground," "what Surge?" "what SOFA?" types?

*rapidly looks around comically*

I mean, nobody in 1920 had the sheer delusional gall to reuse this '16 button:

[lark]

12. How can Obama be so fucking stupid?

This beyond angers me. I know he's not stupid, how can he see anything good from us getting involved with their oh so predictable civil war?
Don't know if he's being threatened or bribed, but it must be something big for him to make such a horrible move.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Well, it'd be pretty stupid to allow our embassy to be surrounded and

attacked, with no way in or out in terms of ground or airport access. You think we should count on Maliki to keep Baghdad and our embassy safe? Wouldn't THAT be stupid?

[lark]

14. 800 troops aren't needed to protect one embassy

Drones aren't needed to protect the embassy. I'm sure you know that's not the reason for 800 troops. Why aren't we flying embassy personnel out if we are so worried about their safety? That would be the smart thing to do.

al-Maliki, I wouldn't trust that ultra-partisan Shiite hack with anything other than doing what's in his, his factions' and Irans' perceived interest. Another epic Bushco fail.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Not all of them are there to protect the embassy. Some are gathering intel.

We may do airstrikes against ISIS, or we may not. I don't have a problem with any of it, so far--this is a responsible, measured and cautious response. When we start patrolling and kicking in doors like we used to, then I'd have a problem. I don't feel we should be fighting Sunnis on behalf of Shia or Kurds.

[lark]

28. TwilightGardener

Us going to Iraq in already the US taking sides with the Shiite rulers of Iraq against the Sunni insurgents and ISIS/ISIL. For the cherry on top, now the Kurds are talking about seceeding from Iraq. Life just keeps getting better over there.

[ballyhoo]

23. You alreadyknow what's going to happen,

lark. When it hits 1000, I'll hit the streets. I actually may go down to Murrieta, CA today on the immigration matter. It's getting time to get involved. This president has stood idly by while a Stasi type monster has been formed that would make Markus Wolf blush.

[ballyhoo]

15. So you're up for sending as many troops as necessary to

protect our embassy? What if it begins to look like a ruse?

[hack89]

18. At some point you have to trust the President nt

[ballyhoo]

19. Sorry, I lost too many good friends in Iraq to

to trust a president who says "no boots on ground" then has over 800 boots on the ground. I was in Vietnam when the exact same horse-crap happened. Thank you for your reply.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Well, would another Benghazi incident be helpful?

Here's my question: if this is so apparently upsetting to so many, why is Congress silent? The President has no shortage of enemies and doubters among them--and many Dems would certainly be opposed to a new Iraq war. Why haven't they voiced their concerns with the specific numbers of troops being sent--and the reasons why they're being sent? The only thing I've heard on the matter was Tim Kaine saying he thought Obama should get Congress to consent to military action like airstrikes. Has any Congress member demanded that Obama NOT send these troops, or publicly doubted the necessity for them?

[ballyhoo]

25. Of course not. The Democrats are hoping and praying he does not; the

Republicans are hoping and praying that he does so that when people start dying the entire Iraq War 1 and 2 accrues to Obama ad he loses the next two elections. That's the way it works with low info voters. The Republicans have been handed a win-win situation. They will win the next two elections and also have another money-making war to appease the 1%.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. 300, 500, 650, 1000, 1500, 2500, 3000, 3500, 4500, 5000, ... They're hoping we won't notice!!!

[ballyhoo]

20. Exactly. But we will notice. Even when it isn't

released, I'll find out the number. Just another mission creep. But unlike Vietnam, we've got an internet now and anti-Iraq2 folks all over the world.

[Psephos]

21. Three words: Nobel Peace Prize. n/t

[reddread]

22. Every pro-war/boondoggler should have to do one thing, as many times as necessary

They should get to know the young children and widows of dead soldiers.
They should try to explain to them why their suffering is also worth it to the
equally injured and maimed and ruined families of Iraq.
They should follow closely the ruined lives and damaged souls that this
BULLSHIT causes.
Because, really, thats the only sure result.
all the rest is just lies and bogus promises.

[bradla]

26. Same old same old....nothing but complaining

Apparently that is all this site does.

[reddread]

27. Welcome to DU!

and ignore.