Throughout a year and a half of war against ISIS, President Obama’s “no boots on the ground” pledge has been repeatedly revised by officials, initially insisting it meant no troops, then no combat troops, and now, according to President Obama, it simply meant no battlion-level deployments.
Obama now insists he never had any intention not to send combat troops to Iraq and Syria, and that the American people always understood he simply meant deployments would be small and limited to company-sized deployments or smaller.
Obama insists that the latest deployment of troops into Iraq, which the Pentagon has suggested will be in the 100 soldier level, will “squeeze and ultimately destroy” ISIS. During his comments, he continued to play up the idea that the war is going well, insisting ISIS is totally incapable of launching Paris-style attacks within the US.
With US deployments by and large limited to numbers in the dozens or low hundreds, the administration seems to be gambling it can avoid serious debate about its repeated escalations. At the same time, the promise of “no battalions” is all but meaningless, since the deployments are happening with such regularity that they are building up into the thousands in short order.
Does this guy actually think that anybody believes him any more?
Mmmmmm okay- so exactly how many 100-man units will be deployed, and will these units all be drawn from the same military higher echelon? Can we expect to see the 82nd Airborne descend on ISIS after being written on the jump manifests in 100-man batches?
Something smells fishy here, and it ain't the fish.
Okay, who is on first?
Does Obama or anyone in his administration understand that the Shiite
militias will eventually turn their guns on our American forces.
If Obama is bogged down, so is Putin.
slick obama says "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'no' is."
Next announcement: Soldiers will now wear tennis shoes in place of boots.
First, Obama has done nothing but lie about what he's going to do – about anything – since the day he took office so why exactly is this any different?
Second, in response to SECDEF Carter telling Congress he was going to deploy special forces to Iraq, didn't the Iraqi PM just a couple of days ago state pretty clearly that they did not and will not allow any foreign ground troops in country and that their sovereignty should not be violated? Why do I get the feeling that the US is not interested in what the Iraqi government wants inside their own country? Strikes me as pretty arrogant of them.
"Obama now insists … that the American people always understood he simply meant deployments would be small and limited to company-sized deployments or smaller."
Well, I can tell him that I never understood it this way. By "no boots on the ground" I thought he meant we were out of there, period.
"new troops will squeeze and ultimately destroy ISIS"
Define "ultimately." Do you mean like in 25 to 30 years with thousands of shoes on the ground? Do you mean cleanly, surgically like you did in that ultimate success called Yemen? Do you mean with another 20,000 bombs dropped? Ultimately, as in after a few million more refugees have stormed Europe? Ultimately, do you think the crap economy here at home will support your endless war abroad? And ultimately, do you really think you can make a government out of your coalition of moderate terrorists, and who appointed you in charge of replacing Syria's elected government?
Endless wars for Israel, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by banning books like “America Deceived III”.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by banning guns.
Both parties are lawless.
Last link of “America Deceived III” before it is completely banned: http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-III-E-Blay…