U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking in the White House Press Briefing Room in Washington, June 8, 2012. Credit: Reuters/Larry Downing
Washington Times: Pentagon tells White House: More troops in Iraq, Syria needed to fight ISIS
Hundreds of additional forces including trainers, advisers and commandos are needed in the fight against the Islamic State, Pentagon top brass has conceded, prompting Department of Defense officials to urge the White House to approve further deployments to Iraq and Syria in the coming weeks.
Defense Department officials told the White House that the U.S.-led effort to destroy the Islamic State requires still more manpower in addition to the roughly 3,700 American troops already in Iraq, The New York Times reported on Thursday.
Citing senior White House and Pentagon sources, The Times said the officials determined hundreds more military experts are needed in the region to take on the terror group, with one suggesting that the number of troops increases to 4,500.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I will be surprised if President Obama acquiesces to this Pentagon request .... especially since Iraqi forces and militias have been making forward progress against the Islamic State (the conflict in Syria is another story). But this is an election year .... and one thing I learned about Presidential elections .... anything and everything is possible when it comes to foreign policy decisions.
3 comments:
Why help the Iranians. They won't like us any better.
Not their corrupt leadership anyway.
Aizino,
I've much he same thought here. Why help the Iranians? You point our correctly they are not going to like us any better. In fact, I think they might even hold us in even further contempt if they are able to procure our help at no cost to them.
I think pretty much every reasonable person agrees that ISIS is a dangerous enemy. It needs to be defeated. There is substantial difference on how to go about this.
I think it also seems more likely than not, at this point, that ISIS will eventually be defeated regardless what we do or don't do. They've made to many enemies. The math just doesn't seem to work for them.
Might we be better off to allow two mortal enemies of ours to tear each other apart. When Iran or the Sunni Arab states win, they will emerge weaker and may not pose as much a danger to us.
Again, why help Iran? Maybe we need to much as we assisted the USSR in WWII. It is troubling that no one in a position of leadership seems to be asking such a good, reasonable, and sensible question as this.
It fit his politics earlier to always send more troops, but that has changed. Obama is totally legacy-oriented this year.
Post a Comment