Hagel: Boots on the ground in Iraq “could be necessary”
The week that the Pentagon nearly doubled the number of US troops in Iraq, outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told CNN that the US may need ground combat troops in Iraq to turn back the Islamic State according to Military.com;
“I think it may require a forward deployment of some of our troops,” Hagel as quoted telling CNN. “Not doing the fighting. Not doing the combat work that we did at one time for six years in Iraq … But to help airstrike precision … Those are things where we could continue support.”
“It could be necessary,” Hagel said. “It could be, but I’m not willing to say that it will be necessary.”
Hagel told CNN that President Obama directed Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. Central Command, to let him know if they require additional military options in the fight in Iraq and Syria.
With 3,000 troops already in Iraq assisting the Iraqis and the Syrian rebels, it’s more like a foregone conclusion at this point. Hagel is the third Secretary of Defense during the six years of this presidency and as each one leaves, they give us a peek into the defense planning, usually the decisions that will raise the most hackles among the American public. So, just get used to the idea now.
By the way, the picture at the top of the page is the last convoy out of Iraq, the last time we left four years ago. In case you forgot what it looked like.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Terror War
By show of hands, boys and girls, who among you did NOT see this coming? (no hands raised).
I thought so too.
Now, boys and girls, how many of you can say, “VietNam redux?” (everyone in chorus)
I knew you could. Now you know everything you need to know about Obozo and the DOD’s future in Iraq.
Class dismissed.
Explain to me how this is Obama’s fault?
Should we have stayed longer? Then there would still be boots on the ground.
Should we not have gone in the first place? Obama is not the one to blame for that.
Oh, we should be isolationist and just ignore the middle east entirely?
You would blame him for the economic consequences.
And every person beheaded by ISIS for “doing nothing.”
Explain what you would do differently then explain the consequences.
There is no easy solution and this is not the fault of Obama,
Bush screwed up when he sent us into that shithole, but Obama also screwed up big when he pulled us out. It was opposed by Republicans and most people on this site for the clear and obvious reason that the Iraqi government wasn’t ready to stand on its own two feet. Whatever Bush was thinking when he sent us in, he was at least smart enough to order the surge and to want to keep about ten thousand troops up in the Sunni Triangle. I think that’s a course of action most on this site would have supported.
What sticks in my craw (I can’t speak for B Woodman) is that Obama unilaterally withdrew us from Iraq over the screaming objections of all knowledgeable people to score political points and cleared the way for ISIS to take over Northern Iraq. Whatever mistakes Bush did indeed make, that was a huge bonehead move.
Lars,
During “two” campaigns, one of his biggest talking points and speeches was about “bringing home the troops” from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even while we still had troops in Iraq and of course in Afghanistan, people were loving him up saying “he brought the troops home!”
So, he bragged for years about bringing the troops home….
Until, shit started to get real again in Iraq. Then monday-morning QBs started talking about the fact the troops were pulled out too quickly.
“Well, remember folks, it wasn’t MY Plan to bring the troops home. I was JUST CONTINUING the previous administration’s plan for withdrawl.”
By position, he’s to blame. By his own campaign speeches, he’s to blame.
Just as much as he’s to blame for sequestration that is causing troops to get kicked out for any and every reason (especially in the 16-17 year range before they’d hit the magic sanctuary).
Now Chuck is talking about MORE troops on the ground in Iraq. (Because he sure as shit isn’t talking about the ones there now, which means there will be MORE.) Are they going to stop the massive pink slip issuing to do that? Very Doubtful. “more” with “less” every day that we still have a military. (Just like Slick Willy in the 90s.)
People were not loving him for bringing troops home when he hadn’t. Quite the contrary, he was constantly criticized by the left for failing to keep his pledge on that.
Lars, that would be you complaining that he didn’t bring the troops home. Yes, I get it.
This is Obama’s fault because he SHOULD NOT HAVE brought the troops home and YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEMANDING THAT HE bring the troops home. You and he were wrong. I might excuse you, you might be ignorant. He has no such excuse – he has a huge department in his government that deals with issues like this. He decided that the advice he received was wrong and he went his own way. That makes this his fault.
The job wasn’t done. US troops were needed to maintain the gains that cost so much. The proof is in the news every day. Again, you might have been ignorant at the time but now you know – the troops should have stayed – and now you know, the advice that Mr. Obama ignored was right, just like every person on the blog knew at the time.
Do not tell Mr. Obama to hamstring the troops with stupid rules of engagement. We tried that already and it didn’t work either. Do not tell him, “okay, a few troops are okay”. If you want this war to end, tell him to listen to the people who know about war – no one hates war as much as soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.
You screwed up. Okay. Accept that, learn from it, and drive on. Do the right thing.
Because he failed to obtain a SOFA (which knowledgeable former insiders from the current
DC clown crewAdministration who were there at the time say could indeed have been obtained had the Administration wanted one) allowing us to keep a smallish residual military assistance mission in Iraq. Such a residual force would have strengthened the government of Iraq and its armed forces, and preventing most if not all ISIS gains in Iraq to date. He neglected to do that because he put his political interests above the US long-term national interests – which sometimes require the POTUS to back courses of action that are politically unpopular.Are you really such an abject fool you cannot see that? Or are you merely so weak-willed and brainwashed that you deny reality whenever it makes “Fearless Leader” look bad?
RE my “VietNam” remark (above).
History may not repeat exactly, but it does rhyme.
But we never went back or lived up to our promises or treaties. And when we finally went back it was to open up trade and pretty much put accountability for our P.O.W.s on the back burner.
Talk to the party with a jackass as their mascot about that, Dana.
Nixon and Ford both wanted the US to live up to its obligations. But Congress said no – by passing a law forbidding it in June 1973 (Church Amendment). When South Vietnam was threatened in early 1975, Ford obeyed the Church Amendment – which forbid direct US military involvement in Vietnam after 15 June 1973.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which party had control of both Houses of Congress when the Church Amendment was passed.
You are a piece of work.
Nixon LITERALLY committed treason and scuttled the Johnson administration’s Vietnam peace talks for political gain. Google it yourself. It was LITERALLY treason. Not hyperbole.
That was just the start. Nixon was consumed with ambition and desire for more power.
Congress was trying to reign in Nixon who out of control. The CASE-Church Amendment was a constitutional AMENDMENT. It required a two-thirds majority. And it required the president get congressional approval for future action in vietnam.
The fact that you left off “Case” (a republican) from the name of the bill he co-sponsored “The Case-Church” amendment shows you are a no integrity piece of dirt.
It was co-sponsored by a REPUBLICAN and a democrat and it passed with overwhelming BIPARTISAN support of both houses in June by a margin of 325–86 in the House, and 73–16 in the senate.
This was not done by “liberals” this was done by congress trying to stop an out of control president who eventually.
Watergate may have been what finally stopped Nixon but the man was truly a fledgling dictator.
And you are the first person I have ever read that argues we should have stayed in Vietnam longer.
Talking about presidents who our out of control, why has the house and senate not done anything to reign in this president and his wicked pen that makes laws, and appoints czars. And one other thing, I really liked Nixon. What you call “out of control” was what all presidents exercised before Nixon, control of the military. And I was proud to serve under his command.
You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension, Lars. If you have the intellectual capacity to improve, that is. No, twit: I didn’t say we should have stayed in Vietnam longer. What I said was that we should have honored the commitments we made to assist South Vietnam in the future should North Vietnam fail to live up to their obligations under the Paris Peace Agreements. North Vietnam violated those agreements nearly from day one. We failed to live up to our end of the bargain we made to secure South Vietnam’s assent to that agreement, which was to assist them in the event that North Vietnam invaded or otherwise violated the Paris Peace Agreements. Congress then prevented both Nixon and Ford from doing so; the Church Amendment (see below for the reason I use that term) was the mechanism by which Congress did so. Different subject: along with being a brainwashed tool, you are also obviously ignorant of not only history but how the US government is designed to work under the Constitution (that condition is not uncommon among leftist tools such as yourself). The Church Amendment was NOT a Constitutional Amendment, dipstick. It was an amendment offered by Church (and co-sponsored by Case) to an existing bill in Congress at the time – either the Second Supplemental or Continuing Appropriations Acts of 1973. It was passed as part of Public Law 93-52. See the citation I provide in a comment below (Section 108 was the language in question). Are you really such an ignorant fool that you truly don’t know the difference between a Constitutional Amendment and a Federal law? Here’s the short version: Federal law can both be passed and changed by Congress; the Constitution, not so much. Now, regarding why I choose to refer to this as the Church Amendment. Almost certainly unlike you, I’m old enough to REMEMBER PASSAGE of the Church Amendment, Lars – and the political discussions and media accounts at the time. While technically co-sponsored by Case (an extremely liberal Republican from NJ, even then a liberal state and which had… Read more »
It DID NOT forbid direct US involvement. It required Nixon get congressional approval for future involvement.
Revisionist historian much? aside from being way off on your facts, insulting Hondo in Jonn’s house is never a good idea. On the matter at hand, liberals hate history, it doesn’t agree with them and never makes them look good. I reference calling republicans racist for everything they can at the drop of a hat, while MLK was a republican, and the Democrats were the ones that tried to filibuster the civil rights act of 64. Or that the progressive movement was in love with Hitler and Mousalini before they fell from popularity. Time magazine man of the year ring any bells? We can bring up the liberals that implemented eugenics to “solve the black problem”, another thing abortion was supposed to help.
I can go on for days about the history of “liberals” but as I’m told everyone I try to educate a liberal, that is way in the past.
Obviously Lars here can’t be bothered to read and comprehend written English. Section 108 of Public Law 93-52 (the Church Amendment) reads as follows:
Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-87/pdf/STATUTE-87-Pg130.pdf
No bucks, no “Buck Rogers” – and by law, thus no military involvement in Vietnam by US forces after the specified date.
Kinda sucks when you find out those liberal “heroes” of yours have been lying to you, Lars – doesn’t it? Maybe next time you’ll bother to actually, you know, do your freaking homework and know what you’re talking about before opening your mouth and spouting idiocy.
In September 2006, I toured a museum in Vientiane Laos with some friends. At one point, I asked the Laotian military lady who was leading the tour about the Ho Che Minh trail in Laos. She looked me in the eye and said, “The Ho Che Minh trail did not go through Laos”. Somehow I maintained enough self control not to laugh in her face.
In that museum on that day, the guy standing next to me flew missions in Laos for 3 years supplying the Hmoung who were fighting the Pathet Lao and the NVA in northern and eastern Laos.
The point? In 2006 the Lao government is still saying that the NVA was not in Laos. Sure, just like they weren’t in South Vietnam in 1965. And Long Tieng was seized by “hostesses” from the White Rose, the “palace of oral delights”. I spoke with the pilot of the last aircraft out of 20-Alternate before it was taken by the NVA and the pilot of the Air America helo on the roof on the Pittman building in Saigon in that classic photo before Saigon fell to the NVA. If you want to lie about history, don’t try to lie to people who were there.
Pathet Laos military murdering bastards, they murdered their own people for such things as western style under garments, eyeglasses, hairstyles, education. Printed a big notice in the local paper at the time declaring what offenses where capital crimes against the state. Drag the people from the bungalow and shoot them in the street.I would expect them to lie. Only good Communist is a dead one. Did I mention I don’t like communist.
And I suppose at some point there will be some Fallujah level fighting and then the ISIS will fade back into the surrounding mosques and other sanctuaries, both sides will claim victory, we will leave and the president will take credit for finally winning the war, leaving the next guy to clean up after him.
Pity the poor Republitard that has to be the zoo cleaner upper behind THAT b
If I had ever done the same quality of work that our politicians and generals have done regarding Iraq, I would have been fired and probably charged with crimes. At the very least I would have had NCOERs/OERs that would have been so ridiculous, they would have looked like a joke.
If it was not so sad, it would almost be comical. They are going to get more troops killed than would have been, had we never left. BUT what do they care, it’s not their husbands, brothers, sons, etc.
2012 was my last deployment , so I guess it’s about time to revisit the ME.
&$@/)$&/@&$:)&/@&$@/&!?!
One of my favorite Rangerup.com T-shirts:
“Dear Politicians, If I did my job as bad as you do yours, I would be DEAD.
– The Armed Forces”
While I agree with the sentiment from everyone that commented, I have to ask; when do we allow the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country? We supplied them, we trained them, and at some point, they have to take hold of the bull, themselves. I understand that we should have left a contingent there, instead of pulling everything out, but for us to continually pull another country’s ass out of the fire is getting a little tiring, especially when they don’t let us do what needs to be done, by stamping some pretty f-ed up ROEs on us so we don’t upset their religious sensibilities. Either we are allowed to take the fight to the enemy, wherever that is (mosques, etc.), or we tell them to handle it themselves.
I’m sick and tired of us having to fight with one arm tied behind our back, because of a bunch of limp wristed, candy assed, whine tit politicians. Go in, do it big, do it violent, make it so ugly that they won’t want to face us ever again, then GTFO. If they throw a fit about it; tell them to suck our left nut.
” … when do we allow the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country?”
Bingo.
I am completely against doing this. It’s as clear as the Good Lord’s sun in the sky that Baghdad is worthless. Not to mention a POTUS with exactly ZERO interest in winning.
We should be arming the Peshmerga to the teeth, help them form Kurdistan for real, and let the rest of Iraq burn.
They brought it on themselves. Not one more American life wasted there.
And since they ran away and left all the equipment for ISIS, ANYTHING they get from us now must be paid for, cash up front. No exceptions.
The #1 problem with most of the Middle East?:
“Inshya Allah” (If God Wills It)
I lost count of the amount of times I heard that in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are hard workers in each country, but far too many fuckin’ people over there have that attitude when something needs to get done, or is critically important.
Hey, this really needs to be accomplished, can you get it done? “Ah, Inshya Allah.”
Fuck him. He’s gonna do the same thing as Gates and Panetta. He’s gonna write a book and go out on a huge media tour to distance himself from the “Bumbler in Chief” and his policies in order to try to save his legacy. I’ll say it again Chuck, fuck you and go away. I see a job for him at MSNBC OR CNN. He’s the type of “Republican” that they like.
Just had to share this. Dullass showed up in my “People you may know” section of Facebook.
Fucker has a CIB and jump wings for his profile photo! I should friend him just to put links to TAH on his page.
Jackass
Not much to do with the issue, but just thought y’all might like this. My uncle, a Vietnam Vet, sent it to me.
Damn! Forgot to post the link. My age is showing.
I’m so young I’ve never heard this. But I love it. I love it so.
I think that must be Lars’ theme song. (smile)
Dang, I’ve never heard that one. It’s GREAT!
That picture is my unit!! 6/9 Cav, 3rd Greywolf Brigade, 1st Cav Division! Scouts!
….although….I wasn’t there. I was out of the unit by then for about 3 years. BUT….it’s still cool seeing them roll out like that. Wonder if they’ll be back sometime.
Obama declared the mission over. Doesn’t that mean he needs congressional authorization to begin another operation? I wonder if he want’s some ketchup with his crow.
Oldmech
Just my two cents folks, I was a (MITT) team member from August 2007 to June 2008 in Diyala Province, Iraq. I got to live with Iraqi Army for extended periods and conduct combat missions with them almost weekly. My impression was that most wanted to fight, a few wanted a paycheck and to sit on their ass drinking tea and trying to con you out of anything they could sell. Now and then you would see signs of hope. During an ambush in January 08, I saw them fight like hell and help pull my team leader out of the fire. Another time at a check point they got surprised and lost 10 men. Our team would lose four good Soldiers that year.
I agree with a lot of you on the point that if we go back we should tear them a new one, make the Iraqis pay cash for all equipment, and arm the Peshmerga. The Peshmerga are the only group able to stand up to ISIS so far. I shudder to think of what happened to all the stuff we issued to the Iraqi army that is now in the wrong hands.
Oldmech –
Hey Oldmech…ever been to Outpost Kwal in Shakarat? Or Warhorse or Normandy? My unit worked with some MITT teams around there in the summer of 2007. Home sweet home, Baqubah, Muqdadiyah, Kanakin, Abu Saida….RTE Vannessa, Detroit. Lovely lovely that summer. Knee deep in Islamic State of Iraq.