US to send 200 more troops, apache helicopters, to Iraq


#1

BAGHDAD (AP) – The U.S. has agreed to deploy more than 200 additional troops to Iraq and to send Apache helicopters for the first time into the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq, the first major increase in U.S. forces in nearly a year, U.S. defense officials said Monday.

The uptick in American fighting forces - and the decision to put them closer to the front lines - is designed to help Iraqi forces as they move to retake the key northern city of Mosul.

Speaking to reporters Monday in Baghdad, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the decision to move U.S. advisers to the Iraqi brigade and battalion level will put them “closer to the action,” but he said they will have security forces with them and the U.S. will try to reduce the risks.

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_UNITED_STATES_IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-18-10-52-03


#2

Pray for our military - they give all! A Commander in Chief should not treat them like pocket change.


#3

What an awful thing this is.

But for our abandoning Iraq, none of this would have happened, at least in Iraq.

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quaeda, and it went to Syria when it couldn’t make headway against American peacekeeping forces in Iraq. But three brigades would have kept them in Syria and out of Iraq, or so DIA told Obama.

But he wouldn’t do it, so now we have “mission creep” that has no discernible end to it and which Obama will ultimately dump on his successor in office.


#4

Yep. The president who claimed he would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan has set the whole region on fire and will deflect any sort of responsibility for the tragedy.


#5

So sad, you are so correct! We must help our troops get through this - how? We must break the strangle hold of Obama/Clinton and Valerie Jarred. We must demand that our military not be victims of money spent on political/social programs, being forced to engage in idiotic programs of sexual priorities over military requirements at their peril!


#6

President Obama simply followed through on promises made by George Bush in withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Blaming Obama for the creation of ISIS makes no sense. ISIS was the result of Sunni extremists joining up with the remnants of Sadaam’s leadership (also Sunnis), who lost their role in Iraq after the U.S. invasion and the handover of power to the Shiite majority.

It turns out that the U.S. military under Obama and our allies have been taking back territory from ISIS and reducing their revenues. We’re going to blame (credit) Obama for this too, correct?


#7

Not so.

Bush had a status of forces agreement that was running out. No treaty is forever. Obama could have obtained an extension had he wanted to, but he didn’t want to. He admitted that on national TV. His Defense Secretary and his CIA chief both admitted it as well.

It’s no good blaming Bush for Obama’s decision to pull out. Obama even claimed “victory” for himself on national TV when he did it, notwithstanding that his Joint Chiefs, his Defense Secretary, his CIA chief, the Sunni tribal leaders, the Sistani Shia and the Kurds all told him the peace wouldn’t hold without a residual force capable of keeping the peace.

ISIS is an offshoot of Al Quaeda, which broke from Al Quaeda over killing Shiites. ISIS wanted to do it, but AQ didn’t. So ISIS moved its focus from Iraq to Syria, only later entering Iraq in force. Obama’s DIA told Obama the U.S. military could keep ISIS out of Iraq and told him what it would take. But he wouldn’t do it.

It’s terrible to claim “victory” for Obama in that mess. How many thousands have died due to Obama’s inaction, followed by slow motion opposition to ISIS now? ISIS is still in firm control of much of Iraq and Syria. The only credible forces there are the Kurds, whom we won’t help directly, and the Iranian-led Shia militias. And, of course, ISIS has spread worldwide since Obama cut and ran from Iraq, including to the U.S.

No, Obama isn’t going to finish off ISIS. It will take a lot more than the 4,000 or so troops he has put there. First and foremost, it will take the responsibility he won’t exercise. He’ll leave it to his successor to win or fail. As weak as ISIS is, (and it really is weak compared to America; weaker by far than Saddam Hussein) Obama has been fiddling around with it for three years now, without significant result other than what the Kurds and Iranian militias have accomplished on their own.


#8

They may be weak, but we all know the story of David and Goliath…sometimes, the its these small little groups who seem insignificant, that end up winning over a much more powerful enemy.


#9

We need force to defeat the Islamic State. This is good news.


#10

Almost never does that happen unless the bigger enemy is ineffective. During the Iraq War, Phase I, Saddam Hussein had a lot more combatants than the allies did, and more tanks. But the allied soldiers were better trained, better equipped, better motivated, and well coordinated.

American forces are not ineffective. They’re just not used. And, of course, Obama is weakening them rapidly.


#11

Not very. Obama is putting in troops against his own will and in tiny increments that are still far short of what the Joint Chiefs and even the Iraqi government asked for to be effective. He’s playing out the clock, just trying to keep it from being a total debacle, until someone else is in the White House.


#12

There is something vile about a country putting their young people into harms way, when they have proven themselves to not have the resolve to make the sacrifices of those young people mean something.

Instead of young people sacrificing themselves for something better to emerge, young people are being wasted. Riding the waves of popular emotion. without a plan or a goal, surging here, and ebbing there, is not a foreign policy.

It is despicable.


#13

My nickname for him is President FUBR or SNAFU, everything he meddles with becomes a preventable mess, or failes to hit his objectives.

  • Healthcare : check, more expensive and lost your doctor
  • Race relations : check, more animosity than for decades
  • Immigration : check, more illegals than ever
  • Middle East : check, chaos
  • Gun control: check, zero progress
  • Green Energy: check, Oil is cheap and now we burn Nat Gas

#14

:thumbsup:


#15

I agree 100%!


#16

I think it is Valerie Jarrett (?)


#17

You put 200 men in where 20000 would do the trick and you get the 200 slaughtered. Keep them way, way back and let the apache do the job. How many are you sending? Russia sent 28 KA -52s in when it was withdrawing its fixed wing contingent. I presume you will send in at least three apaches. Pathetic.


#18

History shows us, no matter how big and bad a nations military is, or how effective and coordinated they are, eventually, someone comes along that topples them, the US will be no different and my bet, the ones who do end up beating us, will be groups like ISIS, at first appearance, no one would think it possible.


#19

LOL! I hesitated when I used the wrong spelling. Sounds like? :thumbsup:


#20

no problem. I am not sure if it is one or two t’s, but she is definitely a political player everyone needs to know about to understand the B.O. administration.


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