Oh Boy, Here we go --> Rob't Gates: "U.S. Will Need Some Boots On The Ground To Defeat ISIS"

[99th_Monkey]

Robert Gates Says U.S. Will Need Some Boots On The Ground To Defeat Islamic State In Iraq
09/21/2014 11:36 am EDT Updated: 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON -- Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Sunday that it is unlikely the United States can accomplish the goals President Barack Obama has laid out for defeating Islamic State militant groups in Iraq without putting some "boots on the ground."

"What I believe, and what I suspect most military people believe, is that given the mission the president has assigned, which is degrade and destroy, that to be able to do that, some small number of American advisers, trainers, Special Forces and forward spotters, forward air controllers, are going to have to be in harm's way," Gates said in an appearance on ABC's "This Week."

Gates said he thinks the number of troops needed, however, "will be very small."

Obama said last week that U.S. forces "do not and will not have a combat mission" in Iraq. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a hearing earlier this week that there is no intention to have ground operations in Iraq, but also outlined some circumstances in which it could be necessary.

Gates said he agrees with Obama's assessment that the U.S. should wait until a new government is in place in Iraq to determine how to proceed. "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos noted that Gates has warned against getting involved in ground combat in places such as Iraq. Gates suggested the U.S. should proceed with caution.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/21/gates-isis-iraq_n_5857274.html

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Send a bunch of boots without the troops. Spare the cannon fodder.

[KurtNYC]

13. more likely they would use these

http://www.uline.com/Product/Detail/S-10481/Protective-Clothing-and-Personal-Safety/Water-Resistant-Shoe-Covers-Size-6-11?pricode=WY759&gadtype=pla&id=73107563842&gclid=CLqcw_nj8sACFVJo7Aod0joA-g&gclsrc=aw.ds

to keep them off the ground, technically.

[99Forever]

2. Same game, different worst boogeyman EVER!

Ever get the impression that our government thinks we are idiots?

[CJCRANE]

3. What he said is common sense. It's a small number of advisors, spotters and special forces

rather than a Rumsfeldian number of troops or a Powell doctrine number of troops.

[99th_Monkey]

4. It looks like a camel's nose to me.

It always starts with "just a few Advisors".

But you knew that.

[CJCRANE]

7. TBH I think it's all absurd

especially since many Iraqis think we helped create ISIS in the first place.

[Vox Moi]

5. Oh! Only a small number of troops! I'm down with that.

It's not like this is Viet Nam or anything.
Of course, we might need a few extra troops to protect that small number that are needed to train and advise.
We might need some logistical capability and, well, we'll need a few troops to protect the vulnerable supply line.

However, even if the troop numbers swell a tiny little bit, it will be a short war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Yep. Right after Surge #4 the war will be won...well...until Surge #5.

[hobbit709]

10. Haven't studied history much have you?

and as for your last line here's a rejoinder.
"To stem the tide of revolution, we need a short victorious war" V.K. von Plehve

[Vox Moi]

18. Funny thing about short wars:

The only thing short about them is the lifespan of the illusion that they will be short.

[hobbit709]

6. Every time I hear some clown say that I think "You first, mofo!"

[99th_Monkey]

11. I worry that Obama may be getting bullied & bamboozled by the Pentagon

http://lorrab.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/gulf-widens-between-obama-u-s-military-over-strategy-to-fight-islamic-state/

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. Another case of much ado about nothing

IMO.

[JEB]

9. Boondoggle into quagmire.

[Thinkingabout]

12. Maybe there will be boots on the ground, could be Iraqi troops, etc.

[Dreamer Tatum]

14. I don't know why we can't be adults, and be treated like adults.

A small, amorphous terrorist army willing to blend into terrain and civilian landscape can't be defeated
by airpower alone. Everyone knows this. It is not a political statement; it's a practical one.

ISIS can probably be contained, harassed, degraded, sidetracked, and slowed by air, and that is the most likely outcome.

To root ISIS out completely will require killing each and every one of them (which requires ground troops willing
to accept collateral damage), or by threatening them credibly with destruction of something they care about
(e.g., Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The trouble is, that is collateral damage by fiat, and wouldn't work because ISIS
believes nothing and cares about nothing.

Let's recap: ISIS cannot be destroyed completely because we'd have to kill innocents to kill them, and that is not
acceptable. So we wage a campaign by air. If we go into this knowing that we are restricting ourselves to avoid
untold collateral damage, we redefine success, and that is fine.

[randys1]

15. Cant win without a ground war so to speak, I agree...

We likely cant win regardless of what we do, by the way, since the more of them we kill the more of them we make.

But yes, to win this battle you would need a ground war, but why do we need to win this battle?

They are not a threat to americans in america, yet, and until they are I say we try something new just this one time, keep our fucking noses out of it.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. I will say that heaven help them if they attack Americans in America.

then I really couldn't care less what happens to them, and whomever they choose to hide among.

[randys1]

19. They will, eventually, but short of portable nukes, the amount of damage they can do

I think is not commensurate to what some propose we do sending troops

[TwilightGardener]

21. We lost the ability to stay out of it once the Iraqi army lost big chunks of its

country, including Mosul, and ISIS started threatening Baghdad and taking over dams. It's really that simple. Had the Iraqi government and military been able to push ISIS out of Fallujah (which they took over last winter/spring) and keep it out of the rest of Iraq, we wouldn't be doing airstrikes.

[randys1]

24. So who's children do we send to die to save Iraq?

Yours?

Mine?

Wont be any politicians or their kids going, we know that.

[TwilightGardener]

25. You really think we'd let Iraq collapse with no involvement on our part?

Whether or not you believe we should, it's just not a viable option for Obama--not politically, not in terms of national security or foreign policy. So the aircrews or special forces who might die in Iraq will be more of the same who died there in the last decade. It's just a mess that we can't walk away from--we broke it, and that will keep coming back to haunt us. Do I like it? No. Do we need to help Iraq not turn into another failed state like Syria? Unfortunately, yes. And that's aside from the threat this terrorist state will pose to us or other countries in the region.

[randys1]

26. I dont know how to respond to you, like many Americans you arent invested in the death

nobody you know is there or would go, I am assuming, please tell me I am wrong and then we could have a really good conversation

but if not then this is the problem, it is SOOO easy for you or anyone to just say oh well, people will die

[TwilightGardener]

27. My husband was in the Air Force for twenty years, he served in the middle east

multiple times, and forward-deployed to Iraq on a short mission. My family did not bear the burden as much as many other families have, especially those in the army--but my loved one was certainly involved.

[randys1]

28. Ask him how many of his fellow airpersons is OK do tie to secure Iraq

1oo?

200?

Wont be many airpersons anyway or likely, but will be army and marines.

W and Cheney broke Iraq, and killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in doing so.

Now we know more Iraqi's will die, the question is how many more Americans?

[TwilightGardener]

29. I guess we'll find out. But keep in mind--pilots want to fly, and do airstrikes.

That is what they do. Special forces want to get into the fight. The types of forces who are in Iraq now, or might be in Syria later, are likely highly motivated and live for this stuff. They have a clear mission, which is to take out ISIS--different from the morass of the last Iraq war, when we were kicking in doors on every street and trying to sort out civilians, Shia, Sunni in their civil war, PLUS battle insurgents, PLUS rebuild their country and win hearts and minds. So while I wish they didn't have to do this, and it will be dangerous and difficult for these personnel, it's not the same thing all over again, unless there's some very bad decisions coming up that I don't foresee right now. A mostly-air war here is appropriate, hopefully we can keep it at that.

[randys1]

31. Cant "take out" ISIS, every time we kill one of them we create 10 new ones...we may never learn

this lesson

[TwilightGardener]

32. We're trying to push them out of Iraq to an extent that a better Iraqi government

and army (and the Kurds) can keep them out. It will be a never-ending failure if both Iraq and Syria can't get their shit together and stop having Shia/Sunni civil wars that are sponsored by other countries (Saudis, Iran). But in the short term, the US can't stand by and watch this group form a real state, like a Taliban with bigger ambitions and money.

[TwilightGardener]

16. That's what we're already doing--the administration just isn't advertising it.

[99th_Monkey]

20. Well, except it seems that Sec. Gates is doing just that. ~nt~

[TwilightGardener]

22. He's not in the government anymore. He's a talking head at this point.

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Yes, here we go again.

[TBF]

30. Robert Gates better have his boots on and lead

that line. Asshole.