Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, right, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel testify on U.S. policy regarding the threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as ISIL, before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, D.C., Sept. 16, 2014. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Daniel Hinton
Should The U.S. Deploy Ground Troops in Iraq? -- Rachel Brody, US News and World Report
Obama's top military adviser said he'd consider sending combat troops to fight the Islamic State group.
U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday he will consider sending ground troops to Iraq if airstrikes do not prove effective in combating the threat from the jihadist Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Dempsey told members of Congress he believes the current coalition of U.S. and allied forces would prove successful but left open the possibility of an expanded U.S. military presence. “[I]f [my view] fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces,” he said.
President Barack Obama has repeatedly asserted that the U.S. will not send ground troops to Iraq. Speaking to members of the U.S. military at Central Command in Tampa, Florida, Obama said Wednesday, “I will not commit you, and the rest of our armed forces, to fighting another ground war in Iraq." In a speech last week, Obama stressed the difference between the current effort in Iraq and “the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” saying “it will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”
Read more ....
My Comment: As I have said many times before .... religious/sectarian conflicts have been occurring in this region for centuries .... sending in a few warplanes will not change the dynamics on the ground at all .... and even if combat troops are sent .... unless you are willing to commit hundreds of thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars with an occupation time period of a few decades .... do not get involved. Bottom line .... the people in the region will have to sort out their problems amongst themselves.
6 comments:
The problem with the statement of "Bottom line .... the people in the region will have to sort out their problems amongst themselves," is that regarding ISIS, it is starting to become more than just a regional problem and will escalate into a global issue if left unchecked.
However I think there can be other paths to pursue that do not involve ground troops, very very expensive paths, but cheaper than committing to ground troops.
However I do believe that consistent and effective air operations against ISIS can prove to be very effective. Sadly we've only seen sporadic strikes. 150 airstrikes so far I believe? That's very small in the grand scheme of things and I get the impression that nobody is throwing their full weight into the ISIS issue and that's mainly due to lack of willpower to achieve results and money... Mostly money.
Well said D.Plowman
Turkey has over 400,000 soldiers and the best weapons that money can buy within NATO. They can crush the Islamic State if they choose to .... but they choose not to.
Is ISIS a long term threat .... definitely .... but it is towards Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the Persian Gulf States .... even Iran .... but it is also these countries that must do the heavy lifting .... but for the moment they have chosen not to. In turn .... there is always a time when we in the West must step back and tell others that they must get act together .... this is one of those times.
President Obama's policy of using air strikes is a good start .... conduct them while telling the regional powers to get involved to commit more resources .... I am just hoping that it does not become something bigger by which thousands of western soldiers become involved in a conflict that they will not be able to resolve even if they stay in the region for 50 years.
Should we do nothing or should we do something I want your opinion Mr editor.....thanks in advance.
Let the middle east handle this situation. The middle east and their respective governments are all too keen to have western intervention do all the heavy lifting while playing coy to their internal audiences at home. Its time they wake up and smell the coffee. If the respected monarch's are so hesitant to use their militaries to fight regional problems, then let the Islamic state knock on the royal families doors. Let the islamic state march on Jordan / Saudi Arabia / Turkey / Gulf states. Etc. ISIS unlike Al-Qaeda was more focused on regional affairs rather then international. I find with respect to middle eastern governments, everyone likes to pass the potato until the problem explodes on their front doors. We in the west have more pressing economic concerns. If our "coalition of the unwilling" isn't going to back us up militarily then let them fall.
I see your point of view, but I just can't get past ISIS being the richest terrorist organization in the world. And being able to finance global jihad.
Post a Comment