Obama: U.S. Troops Will Have No Combat Mission in Iraq

إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية W460

President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that U.S. troops have no combat mission in Iraq, after his top general suggested some U.S. advisers could join Iraqi forces to fight the Islamic State group.

"The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission," Obama told American troops at the headquarters of U.S. Central Command in Florida.

Obama has repeatedly stressed that, despite ordering air strikes against IS in Syria and Iraq, he will not send U.S. troops back to fight another land war in the region.

Indeed, he has based much of the rationale of his presidency on getting American forces out of foreign entanglements.

But his remarks here on Wednesday were lent added relevance by comments by General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Tuesday.

Dempsey said that it may at some point prove necessary to send U.S. advisers into action with the Iraqi troops battling IS, in what he called "close-combat advising".

But the White House insisted the idea of U.S. troops in battle was a "purely hypothetical scenario."

It was not immediately clear whether Obama's comments in Florida precluded such an approach, but there appeared to be plenty of rhetorical space for Dempsey's scenario to play out while allowing the president to insist that American troops have no dedicated combat mission.

The president did not repeat the frequent U.S. characterization of the evolving mission in Iraq and Syria that there will be no U.S. "boots on the ground" -- a term usually seen to refer to combat troops.

Obama's short remarks at the rain drenched MacDill air force base also included a defense of his own foreign policy -- which Republicans argue is collapsing around him.

He noted that he had brought U.S. combat troops home from Iraq, refocused the U.S. war in Afghanistan and would "responsibly" end combat operations in the country before the end of the year.

He also recalled the U.S. operation to kill Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his policy of taking out the "core" leadership of Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But. in a nod to the new conflict and to critics who argue Obama has turned his back on a chaotic world too soon, he said: "We have always known the end of the war in Afghanistan did not mean the end to challenges of threats to America."

The president however stressed that in the new conflict to "degrade" and "destroy" America would not go it alone and talked up the international coalition he is building.

Obama said France and Britain were already flying with the United States over Iraq, added that Australia and Canada would send military advisers to the country.

He noted Saudi Arabia's willingness to base a U.S. mission to train moderate Syrian rebels on its soil and said German paratroopers were also going to take part in a training mission which he did not specify.

Obama made his speech after meeting General Lloyd Austin, who runs U.S. Central Command, which stretches across the troubled belt of South and Central Asia and the Middle East.

He also sat down in closed door talks with military representatives of 40 nations which are expected to take part in the anti-IS mission.

Comments 16
Thumb bill.thebutcher 17 September 2014, 19:57

Let me be clear...were going to fight ISIS by arming ISIS

Missing helicopter 18 September 2014, 04:41

Syria has the regime and ISIS as extremist groups and the silent majority are moderates.
Lebanon has HA and now ISIS as extremist groups and the silent majority are moderates.

Thumb lebnanfirst 17 September 2014, 20:02

The US President does not appear to have learned anything from his history of laying out red lines that he later had to retreat from. One might be lead to believe that this is maybe a division of roles (توزيع ادوار) between the executive and military institutions. However, past precedence does not support such a scenario.
Most pundits are correct in stating that in war, one does not advertise any limits on one's actions.

Thumb lebnanfirst 18 September 2014, 04:38

No disagreement there @anonymetexasusa, the Iraqi army units fled the scene and proved unworthy of confronting ISIS.
One might also be correct in surmising that Iran down deep knows that alone it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to beat ISIS given ISIS's inordinate savagery and brutality. Southern's continued harping on the fear that the USA is only aiming to contain rather than destroy ISIS lends some credence to that hypothesis. They are very afraid of what ISIS is capable of, more so, of the USA being able to destroy ISIS (which I believe they will) thus earning the respect and loyalty of the Sunni Moslems leaving Iran and it's cohorts holding an empty bag.
Iran is watching with utter dismay it's policy backfiring big time. Just my two cents worth.

Thumb lebnanfirst 18 September 2014, 04:42

Way to go @anonymtexasusa!
Of course now watch southern and company deriding BBC as a worthy source. After all, it isn't like the BBC has the credibility accorded Al Manar or Al Mayadeen ;-)

Thumb lebnanfirst 18 September 2014, 04:59

@_Southern_.
"Iran refused to join ..."
ROTFLMAO HA HA HA HA

Thumb bill.thebutcher 17 September 2014, 20:31

texi

ISIS is the fault of the Iraqi Army?????
You are truly a sad sad little man. So I guess the US/Turkey/Jordan/Qatar and your employers in the KSA have nothing to do with the havoc ISIS created??
What a wonderful fool you are

Default-user-icon lebpatriot0007 (Guest) 17 September 2014, 20:42

well said bill

Thumb bill.thebutcher 17 September 2014, 21:12

Texi-

Crack-cocaine really does a number on ya...
I dont recall saying any of those things you listed.
I was just correcting the foolish statement you made when you blamed ISIS terror on the weakness of the Iraqi Army instead of blaming your employers who funded/trained ISIS...
But you can keep ignoring that...

Default-user-icon lebpatriot0007 (Guest) 17 September 2014, 21:16

well said bill

Thumb bill.thebutcher 17 September 2014, 21:38

Ok Texi I get it...

So because the Iraqi army is weak its their fault that ISIS is spreading terror in our region.
So not your Saudi employers fault for arming and training them?????
Iraqi army fault for being a weak army and running away??
Thats the reason right???
Ill say it again....Crack-cocaine really does a number on ya...

Thumb bill.thebutcher 17 September 2014, 21:51

Yes Texi
Keep ignoring any involvement by your masters/employers in Saudi on behalf of ISIS..They are innocent and have done nothing, right??

You tactics might work on the other forums you frequent but not here silly child

Thumb lebpatriot0007 17 September 2014, 23:19

That is the failure Tex. The U.S. is fed up with "beefing up" terrorists.

Missing helicopter 18 September 2014, 04:46

Obama is the opposite of Theodore Roosevelt, he talk loud and carries a small stick.

Thumb lebnanfirst 18 September 2014, 04:55

Like you read my mind @helicopter. A leader Obama is not, unfortunately.

Thumb nickjames 18 September 2014, 04:50

Obama needs to resign, McCain needs to replace him, and put boots on the ground. Screw ISIS and Assad.