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
Theres 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 Houses 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 countrys 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 presidents 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.