2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFLIP-FLOP: Before US Sends Troops To Iraq, Clinton Says No To Deployment AFTER First Saying Yes
She was against it before she was for it...............
Tuesday morning's announcement that the U.S. would be deploying troops to fight the so-called Islamic State militant group in Iraq likely caught Hillary Clinton off guard, considering she said earlier in the day that she didn't think putting boots on the ground was such a prudent idea. Clinton's latest opinion on the topic was an abrupt departure from her previous stance, when the Democratic presidential front-runner less than two weeks ago expressed her support to "broaden" anti-ISIS efforts by bringing U.S. troops to the conflict-ridden region.
.@HillaryClinton: "We're not putting American combat troops back into Syria or Iraq" http://cbsn.ws/1Q9JJTm
10:45 PM - 30 Nov 2015
Apparently it's more than just "the Republican side" that thinks U.S. troops in Iraq is the best move, as U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced shortly after Clinton's interview ran that troops would be deployed there "to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence and capture" ISIS leadership, reported Politico. Carter, who was testifying before the House Armed Services Committee, said sending troops to Iraq will give the U.S.-led coalition an advantage to fight ISIS in Syria, where the terror group has established its de facto capital in the city of Raqqa. Clinton reacted Nov. 19 to U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy speech in which he detailed what he called an effective strategy for fighting ISIS, including using U.S. ground troops. Clinton, who for the most part has aligned her proposed presidential policies with Obama's, seemingly agreed with the president's assessment.
cont'
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-flip-flopping-ground-troops-fight-isis-us-sends-troops-iraq-clinton-2206261
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)"Just" special forces, "just" occasional raids, "just" capturing leadership. Fuck all of them. Seriously.
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)less than 800 throughout the 1950s, rose to about 9,000 by the middle of 1962.
from 16,000 at the time of Kennedys death in November 1963 to 23,000 by the end of 1964.
- June 1965 Westmoreland was predicting the likely collapse of the South Vietnamese army, and he recommended the rapid dispatch of U.S. troops to undertake offensive missions against the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese anywhere in South Vietnam. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, on a mission to Vietnam in early July, confirmed the need for additional forces. In late July, )President) Johnson took the final steps that would commit the United States to full-scale war in Vietnam: he authorized the dispatch of 100,000 troops immediately and an additional 100,000 in 1966.
http://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War
The current debate/discussion reminds me of that time. It's too easy to get sucked in to war.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Obama only wants to be out of office when it turns into a re-occupation/MIC bonanza. That's the deal. So for now just "special forces" here and there, laying the groundwork--and who's going to complain or throw a fit when it's just a few, here and there?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I was just talking to a co-worker this last weekend about how the Vietnam War expanded at a rapid pace after JFK was murdered.
My co-worker and I are both old enough to remember JFK's murder and the Vietnam War.
It was the first time he agreed with me about anything political.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)on the ground.
Can you give me the quote where she says that?