More Military Involvement in Iraq to Come, Says Defense Secretary

Round three is sure to do the trick.


"The U.S. military's involvement is not over. President Obama has been very clear on this point," Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel told a press conference yesterday. "Our objectives remain clear and limited—to protect American citizens and facilities, to provide assistance to Iraqi forces as they confront ISIL, and to join with international partners to address the humanitarian crisis."

His comments came during a little confab meant to tout U.S. accomplishments in Iraq against ISIL, especially after the Islamic militant organization doubled down on atrocities against the local population with the murder of American journalist James Foley. Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey talked up successes, but warned that ISIL is very bad indeed (not a point that's really in question). And they said there's a bigger U.S. role to come.


NEXT: Peter Suderman Reviews Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “His comments came during a little confab meant to tout U.S. accomplishments in Iraq against ISIL”

    So we’re winning this time? Oh, good! It must be because the top men are in charge!

    1. Can they even define winning? “Hey, we killed more of those guys today.”

  2. I can’t take all this real world stuff, it’s depressing. For some reason I feel like re-reading Dune. Can’t quite put my finger on why…

  3. my best friend’s step-mother makes $82 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for nine months but last month her pay was $13237 just working on the computer for a few hours. go to the website …

    ============ http://WWW.JOBSPUG.COM

  4. Clear and limited objectives eh?

    1)”protect American citizens and facilities”: hm, the only facilities I can think of that we need to protect right now is the Baghdad embassy. So that’s an open ended promise to continuously defend Baghdad no matter what, and anywhere else we decided to place citizens or facilities. neither clear nor limited.

    2)”Provide assistance against ISIL”: so, as long as ISIL remains a threat, were going to fight it? I guess that’s clear, but not limited.

    3)”Join with international partners to help the humanitarian situation”: OK, what is defined as a humanitarian situation, and where does our commitment end? When Iraq is a modern, wealth nation? Yeah, I have the feeling the country’s going to be in a humanitarian crisis for a good long while.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.