Look the Other Way as Obama Sends 1,500 More Troops to Iraq
New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker reported that President Obama will send 1,500 more troops to Iraq in a "non-combat role."
The troops will advise Iraqi Security Forces in their military efforts against ISIS, according to The Huffington Post. They will also run their own Iraqi military facilities in Baghdad and Erbil. Previously, those facilities were jointly operated by Iraqi and U.S. forces.
That's just the beginning. Obama also wants $5 billion from Congress to finance anti-ISIS efforts:
Obama is also asking Congress for more than $5 billion to help fund the fight:
The White House says the troops won't serve in a combat role, but will train, advise and assist Iraqi military and Kurdish forces fighting IS.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest says Obama has also authorized the additional personnel to operate at Iraqi military facilities outside Baghdad and Erbil. Until now, U.S. troops have been operating a joint operation center setup with Iraqi forces there.
The announcement is part of a $5.6 billion funding request to Congress and came just after Obama met with congressional leaders Friday.
More troops. More funding. More facilities. But, hey, it's all "non-combat" stuff—as if deploying increasing numbers of U.S. forces and supplies to a civil war zone could be rationally considered non-combat, regardless of what the ostensible mission is.
The president's anti-ISIS efforts are clearly escalating into an all-out war with unclear objectives, uncertain allies, and low odds of success. Your move, newly-empowered Republican Congress.
