Obama vows U.S. will not fight another ground war in Iraq

[candelista]

Source: Reuters

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE Fla. (Reuters) - President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday the United States will not fight another ground war in Iraq, seeking to reassure Americans about the level of U.S. involvement after a top general suggested some combat troops could be deployed.

Obama, who has spent much of his presidency distancing himself from the Iraq war, stressed during a speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa that airstrikes would be the central U.S. contribution to the fight against Islamic State, along with coordinating a coalition that he said now includes more than 40 countries.

"I want to be clear. The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission," Obama said.

His message came a day after General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, left the door slightly ajar to the possibility of some ground forces during congressional testimony that worried some Democrats.

"As your commander in chief I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq," Obama said.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/obama-vows-u-not-fight-another-ground-war-163703817.html

---

President Obama has a dilemma. He said we will "destroy" IS. How can that be done without US ground troops? If the Iraqi army can't defeat IS, will the US just say, "We gave it our best shot" and give up? Or does he think we could defeat IS in Syria? He didn't promise not to send US combat troops there.

[ZombieHorde]

1. I hope he keeps his vow. nt

[C Moon]

2. But mountains are another story...just kidding. I too hope he keeps his word.

[gordianot]

3. If there is actually an attack on the United States all bets are off.

Disruption of shipping will wake up the locals to a real threat and will guarantee a response. Why is there no pursuit of countries or parties buying oil from these people? They are the ones who are funding this escapade.

[Aerows]

17. According to other posters

Sen. Markey came right out and said it is Turkey that is buying the oil. Our NATO ally.

But we can't possibly do anything to disrupt the supply lines carting that oil to them and the financial incentive to keep selling said oil that is being carted.

This is another ill-fated foreign adventure that could be resolved another way if the US wasn't dancing to the tune played by Saudi Arabia and others in the area that want what they want when they want it, but aren't willing to get their own hands dirty.

[gordianot]

19. I had not heard that. Fascinating

Guess they have little problem with such neighbors. Allies?

Like living next door to the Palins.

[Feral Child]

4. I certainly hope not.

Enough war, already. How about we tackle some problems at home?


Also, apparently W's Mission wasn't Accomplished, since the region is still unstable and out of control.

[freebrew]

5. So what happens after 2016?

Eisenhower didn't commit ground troops, Johnson did. Does Obama think that future presidents will feel obligated to keep his promise? Even IF he meant it, he can't foresee what the next pres will do.

There are many more pressing things at home.

[strawberries]

22. Kennedy didn't commit ground troops

then Johnson did after Kennedy's assasination. Johnson became very rich from the vietnam conflict

[rocktivity]

6. He didn't mention Syria in that conversation

rocktivity

[Psephos]

7. It will simply be re-defined as an "international police effort" or some such rubbish.

Been there, done that. n/t

[bigdarryl]

8. Drip Drip Drip!!!!

[JoePhilly]

9. Which is clearly code for: "We invade next week."

At least that's what I'd bet much of DU will now claim it means.

[candelista]

11. He didn't rule out US combat troops in Syria.

Now did he?

[JoePhilly]

15. Which clearly means we invade next week.

[candelista]

21. "Next week" isn't the issue.

"Ever" is the issue.

[JoePhilly]

24. Like in 10 years from now "ever"?

[Aerows]

20. When, not *if* we invade

is the problem. It matters not whose hand is on the trigger. You don't strike me as a naive human being, JP, so let's not pretend that this doesn't go well beyond Obama, Obama's Presidency, and who ever comes after him.

Sneering at people that are rightfully concerned about yet another escalation in the ME is beneath you.

I live in the US, and I have seen the US make some bad policy choices as a *whole*.

Trying to defend one politician or another when the US Government as a whole makes bad choices is like defending the drop of water that falls out of the bucket because it couldn't stop the one before it and criticizing the drop that falls out next for the same reason.

What needs to happen is to plug the damn bucket and quit leaking our blood and our nation's treasure in a foreign conflict.

[JoePhilly]

25. Whoever comes after him can do whatever they want, as we learned from Bush.

The argument "Obama can't do THIS, because the next President might do THAT" is a silly argument.

And I'm not snearing ... the same folks freaking out now, were absolutely sure we were going to invade Syria LAST summer. We had endless threads with those predictions, and all the emotional screaming that comes with it.

Now here we go again. Obama says we won't use combat troops, a bunch of folks here are sure we will, and then freaking out about it.

[Aerows]

27. We are arming a different group of people

to fight against the group of people we armed before. That, to me, seems like a recipe for disaster.

I expected us to invade Syria last summer, and I was pleasantly surprised when we didn't. The problem is that we have way too many politicians in Congress, too many lobbyists and too many defense contractors that have never seen a war they didn't like.

Obama resisted the pressure to jump right in the middle of the civil war in Syria last summer, and for that I'm grateful. My hope is that he can continue to resist that pressure.

[BeyondGeography]

26. And their posting idols

The recketeers.

[TwilightGardener]

10. And they won't--not the way it was done last time. At most, it will be some

embedded special forces in trusted units of Iraqi forces and Peshmerga to advise or call in airstrikes, IF it comes to that--basically what Dempsey said. Large numbers of ground troops in Iraq (meaning infantry and Marines going street to street, kicking in doors and holding territory and living on bases) will become the enemy and the target for both Sunni insurgents and Shia militias once again. It will also take away the incentive for Iraqis to fight. It's that simple.

[candelista]

12. There are already Forward Observers there.

That's who calls in airstrikes, which the US has been conducting for several weeks.

You don't remember the history of "advisors" in Vietnam, do you? They ended up growing into 500,000 ground troops.

And besides, President Obama has not "ruled out" US combat troops in Syria, has he?

[TwilightGardener]

13. I know they've already got special forces there doing stuff, and that's necessary.

I won't get hysterical about another Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Vietnam, until it looks like that's where it's headed. We're only in week 6 or 7 since the airstrikes began.

[candelista]

14. No one should ever get "hysterical."

Glad to learn you won't. Congrats!

[PSPS]

16. I don't think an Obama vow has any value anymore after 5 years of experience.

[quadrature]

18. two more years of this rotten war

unspeakable human suffering.
money wasted.
....................

give peace a chance

[strawberries]

23. Obama is trying to give peace a chance

but sometimes things are just out of his control