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
Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumUS combat role in Iraq not off table, Gen. Dempsey says
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/us-combat-role-in-iraq-not-off-table-gen-dempsey-says/US combat role in Iraq not off table, Gen. Dempsey says
McClatchy Washington Bureau
James Rosen
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted with permission from MCT Information Services
September 26, 2014
WASHINGTON The nation's top military commander refused Friday to back off his controversial stance in Senate testimony that he would recommend committing U.S. troops to combat in Iraq if he believed they were needed to help defeat Islamic State militants.
The steadfastness of Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed a potential gap between President Barack Obama's senior military and political advisers over whether there might once more be American "boots on the ground" in Iraq three years after the last American combat troops left.
In another sign of the expanding American mission in the region, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the first U.S. military personnel had arrived in Saudi Arabia to lay the groundwork for training 5,000 "moderate" Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State.
Congress last week authorized the training mission but still must consider an administration request for $500 million for the program. The authorization came after Obama said he would expand the U.S. air campaign against the Islamic State from Iraq into Syria, a step that occurred this week with air assaults on 22 locations in Syria.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 809 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US combat role in Iraq not off table, Gen. Dempsey says (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Sep 2014
OP
I would expect the General to tell us what to expect after we start bombing a new country.
unhappycamper
Sep 2014
#3
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)1. To be fair this is rather nonsensical.
What would you expect a General to recommend?
unhappycamper
(60,364 posts)3. I would expect the General to tell us what to expect after we start bombing a new country.
Which Dempsey did: we will need boots on the ground to 'finish the job'. The last I heard was this 'job' could take years. (We're almost halfway thru a Thirty Years War.)
What makes anyone think that the results of Iraq 3.0 will be any different than our last two adventures in Iraq?
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)2. American boots?
I listened to the entire hearing. Dempsey states boots on the ground doesn't mean American troops I thought he was pretty clear.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)4. That was my recollection, as well. n/t