Iraq

Obama Promises That Military Operation Involving Hundreds of Airstrikes and Troops Won't Be a Combat Mission or a Ground War

|

Whitehouse.gov

America will absolutely not get into yet another ground war in the Middle East, President Obama declared today at a speech to military personnel in Florida.

Yesterday, a top military adviser told members of Congress that depending how the current operations against ISIS work out, he might recommend an increased presence for U.S. ground forces.

But the president promised today that the assembled troops that he would "not commit you fighting another ground war in Iraq," according to The Washington Post

As a reminder, here's what Obama said last in his nationally televised speech on American military operations in Iraq and Syria: 

"We will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work — and Iraq has formed a government — we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. "

There won't be a ground war. We'll just have troops on the ground. 

In his speech today, Obama also promised, once again, to avoid sending troops into combat missions. "American forces in Iraq will not have a combat mission," he said, according to the Post. Instead, "they will support Iraqi forces." 

Again, as a reminder, here's what Obama said last week in a speech on national television:

"Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq." 

Those strikes, he said in the speech, have "killed ISIL fighters" and "destroyed weapons." In the same speech he also promised that American milirary forces "will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists," expanding beyond the airstrikes that had already been conducted. 

It won't be a combat mission. It's just that combat might happen, inadvertently, as part of a sustained campaign of airstrikes designed to kill enemy forces and destroy weaponry. 

NEXT: CIA to Obama: We Already Did Your Dumb Plan And It's 'Doomed to Failure'

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.

  1. There could be boots on the ground, but that’s not a ground war. It’s just a… non-war with ground troops.

    It’s not a tax, it’s a penalty! No wait, it’s a tax… It’s a penaltax!

  2. “not commit you fighting another ground war in Iraq”

    “Let me be clear. If any American service member is even wounded in Iraq, I will resign immediately.”

  3. So this will be strictly air and sea combat then?

  4. When are we going to do something about the rape culture in the White House? How many more times can we allow our great language to be treated like this?

    1. Oh, when you said “rape culture in the white house” I thought you saying BJ Clinton had returned.

  5. I’m slowly reading the City Journal essay about the early enthusiasm for Obama that was linked in the AM, and it’s hilarious to go from quotes intimating Obama as the messiah to this dweeby picture of him in khakis and a leather jacket, limply waving his hand to the crowd.

    What a putz.

    And liar, but that goes without saying.

    1. I honestly can’t see a single appealing thing about him. Say what you want about Hitler, at least the guy could give a speech. Forget ideology for a second. Even if you agree with him, how could anyone think he is anything but a putz?

      1. He was a left-wing block who wasn’t obviously sleazy like Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or dim-witted like a number of other black politicians. That was enough for many people.

      2. Hitler was a better painter than Obama too — and a better dresser. And he could dance the pants off of Obama!

  6. Is this gonna be a stand-up fight, sir, or another bug hunt?

    1. “We’re gonna lock and load!”

  7. What do you want to bet they will deny anyone wounded in this little expedition purple hearts or any kind of priority for VA care? Hey if they didn’t do that, it might mean it was a war or something.

    1. Syria is already designated Imminent Danger Pay so it’s just another combat zone as far as the VA is concerned. Besides, CIBs were awarded for El Salvador.

  8. “Just the tip, baby. I’ll pull out. Trust me.”

  9. When is it not a Combat Mission or a Ground War?

    When it’s a police action.

    We could have YouTube footage of the last 14 Presidents saying the same exact goddamned thing.

    1. When it is a pure cluster-fuck. Obama has 2 more years to fuck this up by the numbers.

  10. I seem to recall someone saying something similar just yesterday….

    the point is that the media and public are being crowded into a false dichotomy which presumes that

    Anything less than Full Blown Conventional Military Operations ? ‘War’

    Its a silly semantic debate which distracts from the actual activities themselves and their claimed objectives. If Obama wants to assert that there is no ‘conventional’ component… well so what? It doesn’t make currently-employed assets less involved in a foreign conflict overseas which has limited relevance to the security of the united states, or absolve the president of the responsibility to explain what (if any) relevance there *is*

    1. Oh, to see a day when a politician will tarnish his entire party’s image by talking about “legitimate war”

  11. Okay, so I was fresh out of high school and at the rifle range in Boot Camp when 9/11 happened. My experience and frame of reference when I joined was in a world before all that crap, and I thought “There really hasn’t been anything major going on since the (1st) Gulf War. There probably won’t be anything else going on in the 8 years on my initial contract.”

    Now I know that the whole Bosnian thing happened after the Gulf War, but back then it didn’t quite register with me.

    Soft-ball question for you pre-millennials:

    Since I’ve joined, it seems like a no-brainer that our country’s foreign policy strategy is retarded enough to go with a “stick our dicks into everyone’s pudding at any opportunity” strategy that leads to military forces being deployed. Was that a no-brainer assesment back my formative childhood years in the 80’2 and 90’s?

    1. No –

      prior to the end of the cold war (call it 1989-1991), the ostensible objective of the US military was to defend against potential threats from the soviet union and keep regional conflicts* from boiling over

      (*these regional conflicts could be often construed as “the US AND Soviet Union sticking their dicks into everyone’s pudding whenever convenient”)

      With the fall of the soviet union, there was a brief moment where the raison d’etre for US Superpowerdom was being re-debated. See: Fukiyama’s ‘End of History’, Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”, Van Creveld’s “The Transformation of War”, etc.

      The end conclusion *(by default) was that the primary mission of the US military was to maintain security that best allowed for growth of the global economy. This mainly meant

      a) energy security – preventing the endless wars in the middle east between Arabs and Jews and Arabs and Persians and Arabs and Arabs.

      b) keeping China from fucking with Taiwan, Japan, Korea

      c) keeping sea lanes open and secure, and basically enforcing ‘outer space’ (where satellites go) as neutral territory

      there was some argument about expanded uses of military force in the 1990s, when clinton seemed to think the Dick Sticking (*no pun) could also be used for things like, ‘feeding somalians’ and ‘settling 1000-year cultural animosities in the Balkans’

      Right now, it seems we’re back to just those top three.

      1. *to the list of ‘creative military thinking’ under Clinton, one should add:

        Bring the Light of Civilization to Haiti

        which, to be fair… he wasn’t the only one to have tried… But its a joke that never gets old.

      2. Your first word was “No” but everything that followed was “Yes”.

        1. That’s what I got too?..

        2. No means no!

          Except when it means “maybe”. Or “yes”.

        3. So you prefer the “rampant dick-sticking” metaphor to actual, specific description of US military objectives/mandates?

          Fine. Did i make the mistake of taking a rhetorical question seriously?

    2. Since WWII, the answer is “Yes”. With qualifications.

      The original excuse was fighting communism (aka USSR), which explains the Korean and Viet Nam wars. Since Korea was fought to a draw, there was a lull until Cuba went commie, then we upped our presence in Viet Nam. Since both of those were clear losses, there was a long lull until Reagan. there was a lot of pent-up war bonering going on because Carter wouldn’t bomb Iran.

      Under Reagan we stuck our dicks more and more in Central America and South America, (and Afghanistan to an extent) and the excuse du jour then was War On Drugs even though it was still mostly fear of the Russkies.

      But why let the collapse of the USSR stop a money train? So we stuck our dicks in for “humanitarian” reasons all over the place. War is peace and freedom is slavery is now US foreign policy.

      1. ” War is peace and freedom is slavery is now US foreign policy.”

        it seems the only difference between what i said and what you said…is that you want to sum everything up with some kind of exaggerated moral-condemnation

        ‘just the facts’ is insufficient?

    3. I think the way it goes is: Republicans are often eager to get involved in things that are at least arguably related to national security. Democrats, on the other hand, prefer getting involved in things that have nothing to do with national security, but are simply “humanitarian”: Bosnia, Haiti, etc. For Democrats, the more there’s a clear national interest for the US, the less likely they are to support it.

  12. Regarding the picture, isn’t there some UCMJ regulation against US soldiers making political statements or appearing at political rallies in uniform? I would think being in the background clapping for the president at an obviously politically-motivated appearance would qualify, no?

  13. Maybe they all have hover boots

  14. I love it when Presidents put on their big bad bomber jackets. It reminds me of President Business putting on his ten foot platform shoes and scary cape in the Lego Movie.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.