Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq

I think this seemingly growing feud between the US military generals and President Obama is hilarious. It is clear to me that we will have to have “boots on the ground” at some point. Obviously no one is happy about that. But if you are going to do something, do it right. There is no other way we can eliminate ISIS is there? :rolleyes:

Barack Obama silences generals on US ground troops in Iraq
White House publicly overrules military and promises US will not fight “another ground war in Iraq”

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.” - Dwight Eisenhower

Our constitution gives us one commander in chief. Not several.

The generals knows this.

Whether one likes or dislikes Obama as commander in chief is not the point at the moment.
The point is, we have only one, and for now, he is it.

I can’t see the plus side to holding to that point. While the talk is three to possibly ten year conflict. I can’t see how it helps public support. They are twenty miles out of Baghdad fighting Isis. How did we get to the rush point of going after the large nest in Syria. Seems to me the USA s leading the way, from the front into war, not from behind. With air support and advisers.

American military involvement in the Middle East will be nothing short of insanity. The head on clash between Salafists and Shias is growing closer every day. It’s already at a fever pitch in Syria and Iraq, and is now threatening to spread to Lebanon and Yemen. Add to that , we have mass anti-government protests called for Friday in Bahrain (Shia majority vs Sunni minority government) and an increased number of violent attacks upon Shias in Pakistan, not to mention that Muqtada Al-Sadr and Hezbollah’s battalions in Iraq have issued strong warnings regarding the deployment of US troops in Iraq, and of course Sunni Jihadists in Lebanon are threatening to behead more soldiers there, with the obvious choices being those that are Shia. A showdown is getting closer and America isn’t going to stop it. If anything they’re going to be accused, with alot of justification I might add, of being on the Salafist side.

You might feel differently if they were talking about your boots on the ground.

You do realize that President Obama chose General Dempsey to be his advisor, right? Twice, in fact. That’s what the joint chiefs are, appointed advisors. They don’t even have any command authority.

So I’m really curious how “the acquisition of unwarranted influence” is coming into play here. :hmmm:

I don’t think it is a feud between the chiefs of staff and the POTUS. I think it is simply what if you have advisors on the ground, they will get involved somehow. But the POTUS is right, that the orders are not to move brigades around Iraq or Syria to attack ISIS. My understanding is we don’t even have overt forward air controllers (or their current names) on the ground for our air strikes.

I would fight to defend myself if someone attacked me. I accept the argument that the US is under threat and in a war - and has the right/obligation to engage all necessary force to overcome that threat. I do think it should be a coalition. And I would trust Dempsey before I would trust Obama as to when and how to use US ground forces. I simply predict this is where we will end up; I am not happy about that, mind you. Hopefully we can have a relatively good plan by the time all this debate and procrastination are done and the necessity of this is laid bare by events.

We will Chase ISIS to the ‘Gates of Hell’

So we are chasing them with no boots on the ground. :thumbsup: Doesn’t make much sense, but OK it was a bipartisan kind of day. :slight_smile:

That’s the beauty of calling it a “War on Terror.” The possibility of being afraid or being made afraid never ends, and justifies perpetual war footing.

As long as the general public is terrified of being terrorized, we will let our government do anything to other nations, as long as we believe we are safe.

So, for which of the two, ISIS or Iran, are you rooting for to win? Left to itself, one or the other will win the struggle for the Middle East.

And your choice is…???

How much safer did we become so far in doing nothing?

What threats are mitigated by stomping around and playing whack-a-mole in the Middle East?

If we had done nothing, the Middle East wouldn’t be a destabilized cesspool of barbaric fanaticism.

…as if the last decade of perpetual American warfare has nothing to do with it…


Exactly. And the generals need to obey him.

Even if the United States had never existed, the Middle east would still be a destabilized cesspool of barbaric fanaticism. It’s in the water, where there is water.

OK, does it strike no one as odd that we are publicizing the fact that we are setting limits on what we will do? I hated it when people pressed Bush for a “timeline” of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan–just let all the terrorists know that they have that amount if time to gather resources and set themselves up to erupt.

And now we are saying, no ground troops. Well, so what will the terrorists do? Stuff that would need ground troops to quell! Stuff that can’t be taken care of from a distance!

Seriously? This is *insanity. *At the very least, if one is so ignorant of military tactics that one won’t listen to the military advisors one has appointed, one shoudl not *publicize *tge lmits to which one is willing to go, whether in tactics or timelines or whatever.

I’m going to write this off as a bad joke in a lame effort to absolve superpowers of their complicity in international travesties.

There’s been a further clarification.

The White House acknowledged Wednesday that President Obama would consider putting U.S. troops in “forward-deployed positions” to advise Iraqi forces in the fight against the Islamic State – even while insisting U.S. troops would not be sent back into a “combat role” in Iraq.

Obama and his top advisers appeared to be threading a needle as they carefully clarified how exactly U.S. troops might be used, a day after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey opened the door to approving “U.S. military ground forces.”

The White House continued to insist Wednesday that a “combat role” has in fact been ruled out, and that U.S. troops will not be engaging the Islamic State on the ground.

Speaking at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, after visiting U.S. Central Command, Obama told troops: “I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq.”

He vowed that the U.S. forces currently deployed to Iraq to advise Iraqi forces “will not have a combat mission.” Instead, he said, they will continue to support Iraqi forces on the ground, through a combination of U.S. air power, training assistance and other means.

But the White House is no longer ruling out deploying ground troops in some capacity short of a “combat” mission. Shortly after Obama spoke, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest clarified that Dempsey was talking about the possible need to put U.S. troops already in Iraq into “forward-deployed positions with Iraqi troops.”

This is a war of words between the President and the Pentagon. I do think the generals are frustrated because the only way they can accomplish their mission is to apply ground forces as needed. We don’t have any other good, reliable option. And I agree it is silly to be broadcasting to the enemy, “we won’t use ground troops.” It does signal lack of commitment if nothing else. Obama is doing this for political reasons - he doesn’t want to put troops back into Iraq. He should be doing what’s needed to eliminate ISIS who are a serious, dangerous and growing threat to the world.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit