Martin Dempsey: GROUND TROOPS POSSIBLE

[morningfog]

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel emphasized on Tuesday the United States is at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, warning Congress that the fight will “not be an easy or a brief effort.”

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey defended the strategy announced last week by President Barack Obama. Dempsey said the approach “won’t look like a shock and awe campaign” but will be persistent and sustained.

But if it doesn’t succeed, the top U.S. military officer said he would not rule out advising Obama to use U.S. ground forces.

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward,” Dempsey said. “I believe that will prove true. If it fails to be true and there are threats to the U.S., then of course, I would go back to the president and make the recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”

Dempsey also said that, if necessary, he would recommend that U.S. advisers accompany Iraqis as they attack ISIL targets.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/chuck-hagel-isil-war-111002.html#ixzz3DUdJ5EKk

[tblue]

1. Let Lindsay Graham be the first.

Followed by John McCain.

[morningfog]

2. Who couldn't have seen this coming?

We know that the air campaign can't do it. We know that the Iraqi and FSA cannot fill the ground role.

The only question is how long will they keep up the facade? When will Dempsey say, "it's not working, we need ground troops."

Any guesses? 3 months? 6 months? A year?

[MannyGoldstein]

3. surprising. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley Robert Burns

[joeybee12]

5. Shock and awe? Well, I'm not shocked, nor am I awed...

Continual war, failied policies...and so it goes...

[Robbins]

6. Confirms what I thought

"Advisers" In Iraq may be first step to ground forces In at least Iraq.

I opposse this war but i have seen all the signs of where it is going.

[morningfog]

7. All the pieces are in place now. They just had to get the camel nose under the tent.

Now, we can expand air strikes in Iraq and into Syria, put ground troops in when they find necessary and if any US personnel is threatened or attacked in Syria by Syrian forces, Assad's government can be toppled.

[morningfog]

8. kick

[Dems to Win]

9. Thus, Congress should vote on declaring this war n/t

[morningfog]

11. Rather, Congress should vote to not fund this war.

[Dems to Win]

12. OK, I buy dat

[ChisolmTrailDem]

10. Mission creep....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/16/were-already-talking-about-sending-in-ground-troops/

- snip -

So are we already getting “mission creep” when the mission has barely begun? Maybe not — this is hypothetical, after all — but it shows that there isn’t as clear a line as you might think between having “boots on the ground” and not having said boots upon said ground.

One thing everyone has agreed on up until now is that we shouldn’t be re-invading Iraq, sending tens of thousands of troops there to fight and occupy large areas of land. President Obama has been particularly emphatic on this point, likely for both political and personal reasons. He knows that the American people have no appetite to re-run the Iraq War, and it’s the last thing he wants. No single issue meant more to his election for president in 2008 than ending that war, and it’s safe to say he’s horrified by the possibility that his presidency could be dragged down by the seemingly endless consequences of George W. Bush’s war.

But look around at what has been said even by people who ostensibly agree that we shouldn’t launch an invasion, and it’s clear there is an appetite for some boots, perhaps treading lightly, upon the ground. We’re already sending some troops to Iraq, where they’re going to do things like assist with intelligence and coordination. And they’ll be doing some training. After that, it’s a short hop to say, as Dempsey did, maybe some of our Special Forces guys will go out on a few missions with Iraqi army units. And then maybe they’ll handle some very focused missions on their own, like taking out a high-value ISIS target. And then those missions might have to expand, meaning we need some more of those boots. And then…well, you get the idea.

As Dempsey suggests, pressure to put in more ground troops could build if things are going less than perfectly. And things going less than perfectly may not be a 100 percent certainty, but it’s pretty likely.

- snip -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/09/16/were-already-talking-about-sending-in-ground-troops/

[Orsino]

13. They just want to put the tip in.

Just for a minute.

[pnwmom]

14. Who would expect a military general to rule out advising military action in the unknowable future?

Give me a break.

This isn't going to be up to Demsey. Only the President and Congress could make such a decision.

[morningfog]

15. It is clearer than that.

When the air war fails, which it will because there are no reliable ground forces to send into Syria, this will be the recommendation.

And yes the decision will be the President's. I don't think he feels the need to get permission from Congress if/when the decision is made. Hell, he had already put over 1,500 troops on the ground in Iraq and Dempsey is saying he will use those for combat if he feels the need.