24/7 Newsfeed

Put Reason 24/7 on Your Site

RSS

Follow Reason 24/7 on Twitter and via RSS

About That Not Sending U.S. Troops Back to Iraq Business...

Marie-Lan Nguyen/WikimediaMarie-Lan Nguyen/WikimediaJust a few days after President Obama said the U.S. would not be sending troops back into combat in Iraq, the president announced that we would be sending them back for other reasons. Some 275 Army troops have been freshly deployed "to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad," Obama announced late Monday.

The president's statement came amid continued violence from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants in the area. On Monday, ISIS seized the northwestern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. On Tuesday morning, ISIS fighters clashed with Iraqi government forces just north of Baghdad, in the city of Baquba.

A senior White House official stressed to ABC News that the U.S. troops headed to Iraq "would not be combat troops," merely "additional advisors." But not everyone is so keen on the distinction.

"The White House may say that special operations 'advisors' is different than sending 'combat troops'," wrote ABC's Jonathan Karl, "but they would be advising Iraqi forces in Iraq—something more than just training—and it is hard to make the case they would not be in harm's way."

In a War Powers Resolution letter sent to Congress on Monday, Obama noted that the U.S. forces deployed to Iraq were equipped for combat. "This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed," he wrote. 

Meanwhile, a U.N. commission is warning that the entire Middle East is on the brink of war. In a Tuesday report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the commission stated that "a regional war in the Middle East draws ever closer" as ISIS advances across Iraq to areas bridging the Iraq-Syria frontier. The commission warned that Iraq's current turmoil will have "violent repercussions" in Syria as well.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Jackand Ace||

    And your point, Elizabeth? That he should not have sent troops to provide security to the embassy?

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    My point is "conveying information about at thing that is happening."

  • Jackand Ace||

    Here is what he said a few days ago:

    We will not be sending U.S. troops back INTO COMBAT in Iraq, but I have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces, and I’ll be reviewing those options in the days ahead."

    Did that somehow mean that he was never going to make every effort to protect US citizens in the embassy?

  • dantheserene||

    It would certainly be a new approach for the administration.

  • JWatts||

    Oh hell, I really don't like having to be simultaneously defending both Jackand Ace and this corrupt Administration, but he actually has a reasonable objection to the Headline and article.

    When you create a headline of the type: "About That Not Sending U.S. Troops Back to Iraq Business..." you imply that the administration has reneged on it's prior statements. However, in this case the announced policy is both consistent with the Letter and the Spirit of the previous Obama comments.

    This is a Huffington Post/Salon quality article. Sure, you can pedantically insist that the article is technically correct, but it's a bullshit emotive article meant to frame the issue in a way that's inconsistent with the facts as described.

    There's nothing wrong with the administration declaring that:
    a) We aren't sending in Combat troops
    b) We are beefing up the Embassy security.

    Granted, I expect any day now to have the Administration do a 180 and send in Combat troops, because their both corrupt and incompetent. But I'll wait for that event to hurl any condemnation.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    And here is my opening sentence: "Just a few days after President Obama said the U.S. would not be sending troops back INTO COMBAT in Iraq..."

  • Jackand Ace||

    So what's with the snark headline, "about that business?" Its not business...its about a dire situation that is fluid. And sending troops in to protect American citizens seems like a prudent thing to do, rather than some perceived contradiction about what he said a few days ago.

  • ImanAzol||

    This is Bush's fault and you're a racist.

  • XM||

    This is the opening paragraph.

    "Just a few days after President Obama said the U.S. would not be sending troops back into combat in Iraq, the president announced that we would be sending them back for other reasons."

    She made the distinction between combat troops and security personnel.

    She obviously didn't use the term "business" in the literal sense.

  • dantheserene||

    Why are you feeding this troll? It doesn't want to understand and will not debate in good faith.

  • Jackand Ace||

    What's a troll? Someone who disagrees with your point of view? Regardless, all journalists are "trolls." They write pieces, insert their opinion, and then look for response.

    Every blog, including this one, trolls.

  • JPyrate||

    A troll is someone who makes disingenuous comments in the desperate, pleading, hope that someone will take them seriously, and make a negative response. In other words a troll is you.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Anyone interested in a clear and unbiased assessment of what has been going on in "The Middle East" (since the 7th Century by the way) should crack a book or two by Dr. Efraim Karsh. I recommend "Islamic Imperialism: A History" for starters.

    A major theme in all of his books is that Islam is a "missionary" and expansionist religion. The same things would be happening there regardless of a U.S. presence in the region. On that note, Islamic jihadists see the government in Baghdad as a client state of the U.S.

    Karsh will also let you know right away which side he is on. He is a former Israel Defense Force Intelligence Officer who has dealt with Islamic "extremism" close up. With that said, I would also recommend "Jihad…." by Paul Fregosi who will tell you right away that, historically, Islam is not a kind, friendly and gentle religion.

  • JPyrate||

    This my last post ever. I promise.

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    JPyrate,

    Sorry to disappoint you. But you will never get that "promise" from me again. Changed my mind. I plan to keep posting my opinions. Thanks anyway. Have a nice day.

  • Square||

    "a clear and unbiased assessment of what has been going on in "The Middle East" (since the 7th Century by the way)"

    "Karsh will also let you know right away which side he is on. He is a former Israel Defense Force Intelligence Officer who has dealt with Islamic "extremism" close up."

    Forgot to run your contradiction checker?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Square,

    Have you read any of his books? Anyway, you are correct to say that there is a contradiction going in my appraisal. Clearly, a former IDF Officer is hardly going to be "unbiased". Your point is taken. However, I find his overall premise interesting. Have a nice day.

  • Steve G||

    a "missionary" and expansionist religion

    wait, are you talking christianity or islam? so confused.

  • Anon E. Mouse||

    Go to practically any Muslim country and start preaching "Christianity" in the street. Someone will be along shortly to clear up any confusion you may have on the matter.

  • VicRattlehead||

    You can also listen to former Islamic terrorist Walid Shoebat explain the truth of Islam and Islamic states,
    "is "the religion of peace" the one where you can curse its followers and slander them say all sorts of nasty things to them and the followers say " we will pray for you" or is it the one who says "you must say my religion is the religion of peace or i will cut off your head""
    -Walid Shoebat

  • Echo||

    and if they weren't sent in to aid the embassy? and the embassy is over run and americans are killed? then what?? the uproar that would ensue from not sending any troops in would be massive.
    you can't have it both ways... get real!
    personally i thing that every american over there should be extracted now! if they refuse, then so be it and they can die in their stupid stubbornness.
    bring everyone home and totally isolate the country and let them all kill each other or starve to death!

  • Anon E. Mouse||

    "A senior White House official stressed to ABC News that the U.S. troops headed to Iraq "would not be combat troops," merely "additional advisors.""

    Another lie from the White House. Special Forces "advisors" ARE combat troops, and almost always "advise" from behind a weapon. "No, you're doing it wrong...you have to hold over at that range. Watch how I do it." That's how US Army Special Forces "advise", which is cool, but don't fucking lie about it. They're going to "advise" a bunch of ISIS fuckers into the grave.

  • ||

    Another lie from the White House.

    Not to mention that they're defending an embassy the size of the Vatican in a country we just tore apart from a group that we've labelled as terrorists.

    If they aren't combat troops they better be travel advisors.

    I expect another big intelligence win when the dust has settled on this issue.

  • Steve G||

    Hey man, we gotta defend that embassy, we spent over a billion dollars on it.

  • Anon E. Mouse||

    See, that US Army "guarding the embassy" thing; it's another lie. Marines guard embassies; they always have and always will.

  • Stickler Meeseeks||

    Whoa, ISIS is still around? I thought the FBI put an end to that organization a few months ago, although I hear that some of its former members are now in the business of selling (albeit poorly) a shit ton of coke.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "special operations "

    Yeah, Army Rangers and Navy Seals aren't combat troops.

    200 Army Rangers vs. 2000 terrorist savages. I like our odds.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Yeah, it's not like they'll be conducting combat-combat operations -
    just a little 'show and tell'.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Well, apparently the Iraqi "Army" needs someone to show them how to shoot back instead of surrendering and getting a bullet in the back of the head.

  • VicRattlehead||

    It heartening to hear about the civies grabbing up guns to defend their country http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03......html?_r=0 , give them time and back em up if they're willing to fight for it. I spent a tour in country and I am currently out, but I would re-enlist all over again to fight along side people who want their freedom the United states is rotting and the people here do nothing I'd rather die defending freedom no matter where it is than allow this shit to happen, for those who were there and did not come home, the enemy is on the move and we are wasting precious time to destroy him before he grows

  • VicRattlehead||

    Normally i would side with non-intervention but this is the next holocaust/holodomor moment on the horizon.

    Evil wins when good men do nothing.

advertisement