To the extent that anyone still believes President Obama’s pledge that the ever-growing number of ground troops sent to Iraq, the notion was destroyed by comments from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey in testimony to Congress.
Gen. Dempsey confirmed that the US is “actively considering” the use of ground troops in direct combat roles against ISIS, in the course of its plans to send yet more troops on top of the 3,000 already there.
Dempsey is still trying to avoid scaring people off of what is shaping up to be an enormous, open-ended war, saying he didn’t think the number of ground troops would be on the scale of the last failed occupation of Iraq.
At the same time, Dempsey talked about the need for “80,000 competent” Iraqi troops to retake parts of Iraq, and in the absence of those troops it was clear that the Pentagon would be expected to fill in the gaps.
Exactly what is meant by “competent” in the context of Iraqi troops is unclear, though they have proven to be anything but in recent clashes with ISIS, hence the loss of such a large amount of territory already.
Dempsey is another lying warmongering asshole who should be fired like that parasite McCrystal
A year ago General Dempsey was the reluctant warrior when Obama/Kerry wanted to bomb Syria over chemical weapons use that was later proven to be the handiwork of the rebels – not Assad. Many even thought he (and Hagel?) were instrumental in causing Obama to hold his fire. What has happened in the past year? What went on behind the scenes in causing Dempsey's about face would be fascinating – and tragic.
Commander in Chief; Obama or Dempsey?
…kind of raises the question, doesn't it?
Well, that's always an interesting question, isn't it? Who really commands the loyalty of the troops? Obama? The generals? The lower level officer corps?
These are questions that are never allowed in the US.
The loyalty of the conscripted slave troops was certainly a huge concern of the generals during the Vietnam War era. That's why we now have a mercenary army…
No, I'm sure it won't be "on the same level as last time." This time it will be much bigger, longer, and even more destructive.
Why is boots on the ground so important? Aircraft and carriers to get them there cost so much more and are capable of slaughtering people much more efficiently. Can't have anything to do with spending the taxpayers' money!
Priorities?
A problem with one American being killed in combat among thousands of the enemy?
Hmmmmm?
Again? They love Iraq so much they can't leave or can't wait to go back!
And I bet the Iraqi people who are left feel exactly the same way.
So how big of a gap do we have to fill to get to 80,000 competent troops? 79,998?