Obama Vows No US Ground Troops to Fight IS in Iraq - Voice of America
President Barack Obama vowed on Wednesday the United States will not fight another ground war in Iraq, seeking to reassure Americans about the level of U.S. involvement after a top general suggested some combat troops could be deployed.
Obama, who has spent much of his presidency distancing himself from the Iraq war, stressed during a speech at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa that airstrikes would be the central U.S. contribution to the fight against Islamic State, along with coordinating a coalition that he said now includes more than 40 countries.
"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.
General suggests troops possible
His message came a day after General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, left the door slightly ajar to the possibility of some ground forces during congressional testimony that worried some Democrats.
Obama said U.S. troops "will support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own country against these terrorists. ... (But) as your commander in chief I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq."
But, he added, "We cannot do for the Iraiqs what they must do for themselves."
The president spoke to troops from the four major armed services at MacDill, home to U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for U.S. security interests in 20 nations that stretch from the Arabian Gulf region into Central Asia.
For his effort to "destroy and degrade" the Islamic State forces, Obama said American troops will need to lead the international coalition, with local forces handling a significant role.
"Our armed forces are unparalleled and unique. So when we've got a big problem somewhere around the world, it falls on our shoulders. Sometimes that's tough. But that's what sets us apart. That's why we're American," he told the service members to a loud round of cheers.
In Iraq, however, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country to help fight the Islamic State group, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."
Al-Abadi told The Associated Press that the U.S. aerial campaign currently targeting the militants who have overrun much of northern and western Iraq has helped efforts to roll back the Sunni extremists. He also urged the international community to go after the group in neighboring Syria, saying the battle will prove endless unless the militants are wiped out there as well.
Coalition support
Support from the coalition members will vary.
Obama said France and Britain were already flying with the United States over Iraq; Australia and Canada would send military advisers to the country.
He also 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.
"We will train and equip our partners. We will advise them and we will assist them. We will lead a broad coalition of countries who have a stake in this fight," Obama said.
Obama's strategy session with military officials at CentCom, as the headquarters is known, came as Iraqi troops, supported by three more U.S. airstrikes, battled Islamic State insurgents south of Baghdad in an area known as the "triangle of death."
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel also participated in the briefing, a day after he told a congressional panel that the effort is "complicated" and will take time.
Obama pulled out the last U.S. ground forces from Iraq in 2011 after a nine-year war that toppled longtime Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Dempsey told the same congressional hearing that more than 1,600 U.S. advisers in Iraq are acting "very much in a combat advisory role" and said there is currently "no intention" for them to engage in combat.
The United States has carried out more than 160 airstrikes against Islamic State militants in Iraq.
Congressional approval sought
Obama has asked Congress to approve funds to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels who are fighting against the Islamic State group in Syria as well as waging war against the Syrian government.
The House plans to vote Wednesday on the legislation, but Republicans will insist on a detailed accounting of how the program fits into a broader strategy to defeat the militants, Republican leaders said Tuesday.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner said he sees no reason not to give the president the authority he is asking for.
Obama unveiled a four-part strategy to counter the Islamic State last week, including working to cut off terror funding and halting the flow of foreign fighters to the region. Those traveling to Iraq and Syria to fight alongside the militants include Americans.
US residents to Syria
Andrew Luger, the U.S. attorney for the state of Minnesota, said authorities there are investigating a number of men and women who have traveled to Syria to join militant groups.
Luger told VOA's Somali service that more needs to be done to counter the "very clever" recruiters who use organized campaigns to entice people. He said videos and other online recruiting methods are not the means used to get recruits to travel.
"It can't be just online and here is why: an 18-year-old boy who has never traveled before doesn't get the idea of applying for a passport and buying a plane ticket that costs a thousand dollars on his own. Somebody is part of that," Luger said.
"Somebody is giving him the money. Somebody is explaining to him where to go. So an 18-year-old boy doesn't wake up one day and say, 'I'm going to go to Turkey.' Somebody is teaching them what to do," he said.
Luger also said young people in his area, which is home to the largest ethnic Somali population in the U.S., need better education, job opportunities and engagement in order to avoid becoming disenfranchised and losing touch with their communities.
Comments
Is it just me but are there other SWJ commenters that truly believe we as a country have no strategy for IS nor the Ukraine right now?
From Daily Beast reference the IS:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/19/even-a-top-democrat-th…
Concerning the Ukraine---we are sending anti tank weapons to northern Iraq and training them on the weapons.
BUT in the Ukraine which has followed the US "principles of rule of law an good governance" and then made a clear choice to free themselves as a Russian vassal state and which now is being literally overrun with Russian "vacationing" tanks along with Russian "vacationing and contract troops" ----WE send "blankets".
Come on really--"blankets" against the newer Russian T72B series and T80s?
As an American---this is embarrassing. But we panic at the thought of IS running around Iraq in light pickup trucks--does that make sense to anyone?
Here is a single major difference--the Ukrainians are not asking for US ground troops, not asking for US air strikes, not asking for US trainers ---they simply say--provide us the weapons to defend ourselves and we will do the fighting.
But we shake in our boots "at offending the Russians" and a potential for war but in the end for all our "sanctions" and wanting the Russians to feel "pain"--has Putin really shown that the "pain" hurts---in the meantime the Ukrainians are losing more land everyday during a "ceasefire" we cheered as a good step forward---does that makes sense to anyone?
Reference that supposed "ceasefire" that the West pushed onto the Ukraine in order to get Putin into a "conversation":
Clashes erupt in eastern #Ukraine before fresh ceasefire talks
http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/clashes-erupt-in-ea… …
61% of Russians believe there are parts of neighbouring countries that really belong to Russia
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-u… …
pic.twitter.com/ZqCrlvCfL3
We the US get all out of sorts when "religious cleansing" is conducted in Iraq by the IS---but has anyone discussed, talked about or even mentioned in the US mainstream media "ethnic cleansing ongoing in the Ukraine"?
The Russian advance in the #Donbas goes hand in hand with #ethnic_cleansing. 800 new refugees arrived in #Mariupol. pic.twitter.com/Hp6u3Oz0qf
AND this is being practiced and allowed by the Russians under their military control in a country that is not Russian nor asked them to come into their country--and yet when IS commits something similar we fall out of the clouds--Why is there such a double standard in the US foreign policy?
That is totally different from what is ongoing now in Iraq and Syria where the Kurds are begging for help and the Iraqi's that started the whole mess are begging as well--yet we knee jerk and drop everything and respond yet when we are being constantly threated with nuclear strikes, the INF is being violated and "Bears" practice nuclear cruise missile strikes off out coasts--we respond with what words and "blankets"?
Right now the Ukraine is being overrun with Russian tanks and really heavy artillery--the last time I checked the net for IS use of heavy tanks/heavy artillery--I did not see a single reference to IS heavy armor nor anything other than mortars.
Did I miss something the WH is not telling the American public about IS armor abilities?
Just what again is that new US strategy for the IS and the Russians--somehow I cannot see it in action anywhere in other than words and more SOF on the ground guiding airstrikes.
Begs a serious question do we as a country and do our current civilian leadership really understand our priorities?
AND can someone help them formulate a really simple easy to follow and understand "strategy" that makes sense in the 21st century.
This is an interesting article plus the one from the Daily Beast of the alleged relationship between AQ and IS.
Because the generals want option of ground troops: Rift widens between Obama, US military over strategy to fight ISIS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rift-widens-betwe… …
I remember the JCoS a week or so ago "state for the public consummation" IS is not a threat right now for the US--now watch his shift again.
Man it is just OCO funding that drives senior military leadership or do they really think?
Given the renewed war encompasses a multitrack strategy (fighting ISIL, as well as strengthened efforts at regime change in Syria and the rollback of Iran's influence in the region, it makes military sense not to insert large American combat formations into the region. The risks are heightened for multidimensional conflict.
I think this is what happens when the President tries to target his remarks to one audience to influence them for a specific purpose. It seems in this case the President is trying to ensure public support thus the no troops on the ground and application of the Yemen/Somalia model of counterterrorism. The destruction of ISIL/IS is likely targeted at Iraq and the Syrian opposition. And as we have said for guidance to the military destruction of ISIL/IS and no boots on the ground using a Yemen/Somalia CT model is an ends-ways mismatch. Yes we can parse this out and say no boots on the ground is to satisfy the American people and destruction of ISIL/IS is to build the coaltion and demonstrate US strength and resolve. But when everyone is hearing these remarks they are being interpreted in different ways. And ironically rather than developing and executing strategy we are spending more time on strategic communications try to explain and re-explain the "strategy" (in actuality simply the speech). While I am sure the speechwriters intent was to address these issues in a way that would satisfy everyone and make everyone happy - but we all know what Lincoln said about pleasing all the people. I think that this episode is going to give a lot of material for professors who teach strategic communications and presidential speechwriting.
Again, it is ironic how much time and effort is spent on this issue. I do not think that was the intent of the President's speech. On the other hand perhaps that is the point. Maybe this is meant to distract the public from other things. Maybe this is a brilliant stratgegic communications plan that is going to provide for some kind of operation that has never before been conducted and will bring ultimate success.