Home / terrorism / Doubletalk on Iraq: U.S. Ground Troops? Maybe. Combat Troups? No.
Print Friendly and PDF

Doubletalk on Iraq: U.S. Ground Troops? Maybe. Combat Troups? No.

Written by Gary North on August 14, 2014

This appeared on the Fox News site.

he White House appeared to walk a fine line Wednesday as a team of armed U.S. troops arrived in Islamic State-held territory in northern Iraq to plan a possible rescue mission, yet officials insisted they would not be in a “combat role.”

Since President Obama announced last Thursday that he had authorized airstrikes in Iraq, he and his deputies have stressed that U.S. combat troops will not return to the warzone. But amid concerns that the “limited” airstrikes against Islamic State militants are having a limited impact, his security team is reviewing new options for potentially rescuing the thousands of Yazidi refugees stuck on a mountain and relying strictly on aid drops for food and water.

One of those options, a White House official indicated Wednesday, could include ground troops — just not combat troops.

“[Obama is] open to recommendations in which the United States is helping to facilitate the removal of these people from the mountain on a humanitarian mission, which we believe is separate than saying U.S. forces are going to be redeployed in Iraq in a combat role to take the fight to [the Islamic State],” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Wednesday.

Rhodes said the options being considered include a series of airlifts but also “corridors” — a term for creating the conditions on the ground so the refugees can flee to safety.

Asked if the president would authorize ground troops to establish such a corridor, Rhodes said the decision has not been made yet.

But he stressed that “what [Obama’s] ruled out” is bringing U.S. forces into combat on the ground.

Let me get this straight. The President may send in ground troops. If he does, will they be wearing boots? “Yes.” Then it’s boots on the ground in Iraq. In 2014. That’s 11+ years.

Will the troops be armed? “Yes.” Then they are combat troops. “No, no, no. They are merely ground troops.”

Ground, as in ground round.

If the President sends in unarmed troops, Hillary will be gunning for him. He will be unarmed. But if he sends in armed troops, they will be combat troops as soon as ISIS decides to attack.

Remember back in 2001? Remember how we were told that Americans must not let terrorists shape our agenda?

The terrorists are shaping our agenda.

Continue Reading on www.foxnews.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

8 thoughts on “Doubletalk on Iraq: U.S. Ground Troops? Maybe. Combat Troups? No.

  1. connie davis says:

    it will be GEORGE BUSH fault

  2. peleus212 says:

    seems like not only are they shaping our agenda, they are playing Obama like a big ol drum. Rememer the new buzz word 'Advisors' no longer will use 'Boots on the ground'

  3. Obama is caught between a rock and a hard place. On one side his not so secret support and affiliation to the Muslim Brotherhood is being tested and on the other side the people are demanding he help those Christians from the genocide mandate of the Muslims caliphate to rule the world. He has kept our borders open to the drug cartels, illegal alien workers, terrorists and anyone else that wants to invade our country for his political agenda and exploitation. He has armed and aided the very terrorists and drug cartels that want to destroy us. He must be charged and prosecuted for his crimes, felonies and treason.

  4. If Big O sends unarmed ground troops into Iraq, they'll be hamburger as soon as ISIS decides to attack. But their bodies will also be his excuse to send in a huge armed force to go after ISIS, while he gets to look like a hero. Once again, he's showing no concern for our military folk.

    Does anyone seriously believe that the ISIS demons will decline to attack unarmed soldiers, when those bastard sons of camels and baboons are willing to kill women and children?

  5. Looks like all the soldiers are White what’s up with that

  6. The final control of the military must always be under a civilian Commander in Chief. But that C in C must have a firm policy, the best military advisers that are available, and the best interests on the United States. Obama has none of the above. Due to his knee jerk execution of US reaction we are getting into what may turn out to be a new Hundred Years War. In spite of our Presidents romance with Islam, the Muslim world turns more and more aggressively against us. Meanwhile our military is being decimated. This does not bode well. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  7. Obama didn't want another 'Bengazi' in Erbil.

  8. Same way Vietnam started: "We're only sending in advisors." Except US "advisors" are always wearing camo, helmuts, backpacks and weaponry, so when the shooting starts, those "advisor" shoot back and oh, what a lovely war we have!