Skip to content

More On American Ground Troops Needed To Fight ISIS

September 14, 2014

Last week I made my views known about the need to remove ISIS and defeat their mission, and the strong use of force that will be required to meet that objective.  I strongly suspect at some point any multi-national force will include Americans.

That is a hard fact to swallow for many in this nation who we are told are ‘war-weary’.for many in this nation who we are told are ‘war-weary’.   But as much as I desire to see our national focus and resources spent on climate change, a public infrastructure jobs program, and the addressing of college loans there is also a strong recognition that we do not get to chose the times in which we live, or the world hot spots that develop.

Today the national conversation continues on the role of possible use of American troops, as noted in this exchange on Meet The Press.

DENIS McDONOUGH, White House chief of staff, to Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”: “We’re going to lead an international effort against ISIL.  But this is not going to be easy. … Success looks like an ISIL that no longer threatens our friends in the region, no longer threatens the United States. An ISIL that can’t accumulate followers, or threaten Muslims in Syria, Iran, Iraq, or otherwise.

CHUCK: “[T]here’s not a single military adviser that has come to you guys and said, ‘You can defeat … ISIS in Syria, without come combat troops.’”

DENIS: “That’s correct.”

CHUCK: “Can you pledge for sure that there will never be American combat troops on the ground in Syria?”

DENIS: “We need ground troops — that’s why we want this program to train the opposition, that’s currently pending in Congress. And that’s why we want to make sure that this coalition bring Sunnis to the fight.”

7 Comments
  1. Tom permalink
    September 18, 2014 8:37 PM

    Deke:

    While we essentially agree on this issue, I don’t think we will reach consensus on the policy behind the wars in Iraq. Who knows, maybe I am too closed-minded and stubborn. I realize the potential for this in my thinking.

    I would have you note that in almost every comment I’ve made on the subject, I’ve applauded Obama’s use or drones to take the fight to the enemy. I’ve also noted my belief that were Bush or some other Republican to pursue the same course, the left would go bonkers. I sincerely hope that once Obama can meet with his generals to determine an even more aggressive strategy. (But looking at the Obama foreign policy as a whole, I don’t think there’s any chance history will see him as a wise leader. You might want to dial down the Bush was stupid meme; there have not been many Foriegn policy successes since Obama won the Nobel Prize for being not-Bush )

    My point regarding Halliburton was to point out how absurd it was to mention this in the context of the urgent need to destroy the organized slavers, rapists, and murderers who call themselves Islamic state. I think revelations from Australia point to the need not to dither another two years away. Finally, if Halliburton were profiting unethically from the war effort, Holder and the Justice Department would punish them with the same vigor they applied to the Financial Officers who created our eternal recession.

    I prefer Death of a Salesman or The Crucible as far as Miller goes.

  2. September 17, 2014 3:34 PM

    Tom,

    First off here is one citizen and one blogger who was very much opposed to the invasion of Iraq on policy grounds. It was and remains an unmitigated disaster. Had there not been a war to topple the Iraq government we would not be facing the dire situation that now confronts us in Iraq. Those who wage protest against that war did so on solid ground. Recall that it was Bush 41 who had brains enough to not do the deed when the military had the chance because he understood the ‘Tito effect’. Bush, Jr., who never proved he was mentally capable of leadership, made the opposite choice and we are living with the results.

    What gets you all in a lather about the drone strikes, etc. from Obama is that his administration is actually fighting the war on terror, and taking the fight to where it belongs. When our forces were in full strength in Afghanistan in 2002 there was a pull-down by Bush to allow for the war in Iraq to be pursued and as a result the hunt for bin Laden was not engaged in with the energy we should have used. Fighting terror was NOT the reason we went to war in Iraq and you know it. Obama has used tactics to fight terrorists in many nations and is to be applauded.

    I can not believe that you actually wrote and posted the following sentence “Who cares what Halliburton made in the Iraq War? ”

    You are now OK with war profiteering?

    Might I refer you to Arthur Miller’s “All My Sons” for homework tonight before you type anything else that makes you look like your sensibilities are slipping even further.

  3. tom permalink
    September 17, 2014 2:40 PM

    Solly:

    If we were to follow your “logic”, Europe would be in the hands of the Nazis. And who can take you seriously when you write ” “Hey, Ho, BHO, how many kids did you kill for oil?”” The left wasn’t against the War in Iraq, or even profiteering, they were just against Bush. (remember all the protests about BHO’s drone strikes, the killing of civilians, and the extra-judicial killing of Americans? neither do I) Who cares what Halliburton made in the Iraq War? And putting a word in all caps doesn’t make it more impressive–well, to most of us, anyway. And while I never mentioned the Keystone XL, before you start busting out with big words like “aquifer,” why not pull out a map and look at the hundreds of pipelines which already criss-cross the thing. How is one more going to make a difference?

  4. Solly permalink
    September 16, 2014 11:08 AM

    Tom, perhaps you can get into a remedial Economics 101 course. There’s a WORLD market for oil. That’s why the idgets that say we need to build the XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil over Midwest aquifers to “solve” our dependence on foreign oil are full of tar sand! The oil will be refined and sold and shipped to the highest bidder, probably India or China ( on a Liberian flagged tanker). As far as “we” not allowing the raping and pillaging, perhaps I could direct you to the local Iraqui Army office. We should put away the tired idiocy of the chicken hawk right. By the way, it’s estimated Halliburton made 39.5 BILLION so far on the Iraq war

  5. Tom permalink
    September 16, 2014 9:13 AM

    Where ISIL is concerned, we should put away the tired rhetoric of the idiot left. America got no oil in either gulf war. Perhaps we should allow the continued rape and enslavement of women and all the other horrors.

  6. skip permalink
    September 14, 2014 8:43 PM

    To defeat ISIS, as ISIS ” … sends one of yours to the morgue, you send two of his to the morgue.” Shawn Connery utter those words in his movie,, ‘The Untouchables’.

  7. Solly permalink
    September 14, 2014 10:59 AM

    You’ll note that the WH-COS used weasel words to not answer the question (and the great Chuck Todd didn’t press him). But Barry would have such opposition from his base that he wouldn’t attempt it. I can see it now, crowds in front of a Democratic White House, “Hey, Ho, BHO, how many kids did you kill for oil?”……..and Saudi Kings and Emirs and Europeans, who besides the British, won’t raise a finger to help or pay for it. Do you think ISIL’s recruiting is going well now? Send some U.S. troops. And I don’t want to see those videos of captured troops.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: