Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee raised the possibility of U.S. combat forces being used against ISIL despite repeated assurances by President Obama.
“My view at this point is that
Dempsey laid out a scenario where U.S. combat troops could possibly be utilized in Iraq.
“An example, if the Iraqi security forces and [Kurdish Peshmerga] were at some point ready to retake Mosul … it could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising, or accompanying for that mission.”
The Washington Post reported Dempsey revealed in his testimony that U.S. commanders have already sought permission, on at least one occasion, to deploy small teams of U.S. advisers into battle with Iraqi troops. Dempsey also suggested that, while Obama has held firm, he might be persuaded to change his mind.
“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”
This comes at a time when Congress is expected to vote on Wednesday President Obama’s request for approval to train and equip Syrian rebels fighting ISIS.
The Post continued, the House resolution, expected to come to a vote Wednesday, explicitly says that it does not support U.S. forces on the ground. The resolution is likely to be approved on a bipartisan basis and be included in a broader government funding bill that will make it to the president’s desk by the end of the week, lawmakers said.
The question of ground forces, however, will probably become a central focus of a legislative debate about war powers that is expected to begin after the Nov. 4 elections.
The testimony by Dempsey has continued the confusing nature of the president’s Iraq strategy. The administration is stating one thing, and the military leaders are stating something different.
Last week the president stated and has continued to state emphatically that “American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”
Last week the Washington Post reported that Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, said that his best military advice was to send a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants, according to two U.S. military officials. The recommendation, conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role, a step adamantly opposed by the White House. Instead, Obama had decided to send an additional 475 U.S. troops to assist Iraqi and ethnic Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment.
Even after the president’s national address to the nation last week regarding his Iraq strategy, a week later the president and his administration are still articulating a confusing strategy on Iraq.
The president must remember as Clausewitz stated, “It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means.”
The question, what is our political strategy in Iraq and in confronting ISIL?
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.