Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts)
Wed Sep 17, 2014, 07:43 AM Sep 2014

There’s a lot less keeping the U.S. from sending ground troops to Iraq than you think

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/16/theres_a_lot_less_keeping_the_u_s_from_sending_ground_troops_to_iraq_than_you_think/



A Senate hearing on Tuesday did little to calm those who fear of a slippery slope leading to a greater war

There’s a lot less keeping the U.S. from sending ground troops to Iraq than you think
Elias Isquith
Tuesday, Sep 16, 2014 03:00 PM EST

As top military officials laid out the White House’s case for war on ISIS (sometimes called ISIL) during hearings in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday, it became harder for some observers to shake the feeling that the country’s latest rush to war was being undertaken hastily and without a proper consideration of its potential consequences.

According to the Huffington Post, the more the military men spoke in favor of a limited but relentless campaign against ISIS, the more it became apparent that the only thing keeping the constrained engagement from ballooning into a greater one — one that could require the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops — was the judgment of the president and the vagaries of the popular will.

Despite the president’s oft-repeated promise to send no “boots on the ground” to Iraq and Syria, for example, the Senate hearing confirmed that the current strategy calls for an official stance of war against ISIS, which means that any pilot downed by ISIS forces while in the process of bombing the extremist group would have to be rescued by, yes, “boots on the ground.”

Gen. Martin Dempsey informed senators that the rescue operation force would be relatively small. But he also reserved the right to ask for more troops if he deemed the “circumstance” was “evolving.” Said Dempsey: “If the Iraqi security forces and the [Kurdish Peshmerga forces] were at some point ready to retake Mosul — a mission that I would find to be extraordinarily complex — it could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that mission.”
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Foreign Affairs»There’s a lot less keepin...