12
12
0
From: Army Times
WASHINGTON — The nation's top military leader told Congress Thursday that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops as they engage in more complex missions in the campaign against Islamic State militants.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Iraqi forces are doing a better job, but he said an effort to move into Mosul or to restore the border with Syria would require more complex operations.
"I'm not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but we're certainly considering it," Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee.
He added that the U.S. has a modest force in Iraq now, and "any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest. I just don't foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent."
Dempsey's sober assessment echoed his testimony to Congress in September at the start of the three-month campaign against the militants who have seized parts of Iraq and Syria.
Joining him at the witness table was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said the coalition was making progress in the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle.
Hagel said the "pressure is having an effect on potential ISIL recruits and collaborators ... striking a blow to morale and recruitment. We know that. Our intelligence is very clear on that."
He used the term ISIL for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Dempsey said the military campaign will be "marked by ... three steps forward, two steps back."
The testimony comes just days after President Barack Obama asked Congress for a new $5.6 billion plan to expand the U.S. mission in Iraq and send up to 1,500 more American troops to the war-torn nation.
Separately, the administration announced that special presidential envoy John Allen and deputy special presidential envoy Brett McGurk will travel to France and the United Arab Emirates to discuss coalition efforts to defeat the militants.
Obama authorized the deployment of advisory teams and trainers to bolster struggling Iraqi forces across the country, including into Iraq's western Anbar province where fighting with Islamic State militants has been fierce. Obama's plan could boost the total number of American troops in Iraq to 3,100. There are currently about 1,400 U.S. troops there, out of the 1,600 previously authorized.
Lawmakers expressed skepticism about limiting the U.S. deployment to advisers and trainers, with Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, arguing that "limiting our advisers to headquarters buildings will not help newly trained Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces hold terrain, much less defeat ISIL in the field. Yet the president has doubled down on his policy of 'no boots on the ground,' despite any advice you give him."
In citing expert advice, McKeon offered comments from previous defense secretaries and also quoted Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, who last month told an Army conference that ruling out ground forces is like telling a rival you won't play your best players.
Hagel maintained that the U.S. personnel will not be involved in ground combat.
Other lawmakers expressed concerns about the United States getting dragged back into the fight in Iraq, with Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., pressing the Pentagon leaders about the exit strategy.
Congress must decide whether to reauthorize training and equipping of moderate Syrian rebels, an authority that expires Dec. 11.
Lawmakers are bracing for a broader fight next year over a new authorization to use military force to replace the post-Sept. 11 law and the one crafted for the Iraq war 11 years ago.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/13/dempsey-specter-more-is-troops/18967911/
WASHINGTON — The nation's top military leader told Congress Thursday that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops as they engage in more complex missions in the campaign against Islamic State militants.
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Iraqi forces are doing a better job, but he said an effort to move into Mosul or to restore the border with Syria would require more complex operations.
"I'm not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but we're certainly considering it," Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee.
He added that the U.S. has a modest force in Iraq now, and "any expansion of that, I think, would be equally modest. I just don't foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent."
Dempsey's sober assessment echoed his testimony to Congress in September at the start of the three-month campaign against the militants who have seized parts of Iraq and Syria.
Joining him at the witness table was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who said the coalition was making progress in the fight against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, but the American people must prepare for a long and difficult struggle.
Hagel said the "pressure is having an effect on potential ISIL recruits and collaborators ... striking a blow to morale and recruitment. We know that. Our intelligence is very clear on that."
He used the term ISIL for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
Dempsey said the military campaign will be "marked by ... three steps forward, two steps back."
The testimony comes just days after President Barack Obama asked Congress for a new $5.6 billion plan to expand the U.S. mission in Iraq and send up to 1,500 more American troops to the war-torn nation.
Separately, the administration announced that special presidential envoy John Allen and deputy special presidential envoy Brett McGurk will travel to France and the United Arab Emirates to discuss coalition efforts to defeat the militants.
Obama authorized the deployment of advisory teams and trainers to bolster struggling Iraqi forces across the country, including into Iraq's western Anbar province where fighting with Islamic State militants has been fierce. Obama's plan could boost the total number of American troops in Iraq to 3,100. There are currently about 1,400 U.S. troops there, out of the 1,600 previously authorized.
Lawmakers expressed skepticism about limiting the U.S. deployment to advisers and trainers, with Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, arguing that "limiting our advisers to headquarters buildings will not help newly trained Iraqi and Syrian opposition forces hold terrain, much less defeat ISIL in the field. Yet the president has doubled down on his policy of 'no boots on the ground,' despite any advice you give him."
In citing expert advice, McKeon offered comments from previous defense secretaries and also quoted Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski, who last month told an Army conference that ruling out ground forces is like telling a rival you won't play your best players.
Hagel maintained that the U.S. personnel will not be involved in ground combat.
Other lawmakers expressed concerns about the United States getting dragged back into the fight in Iraq, with Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., pressing the Pentagon leaders about the exit strategy.
Congress must decide whether to reauthorize training and equipping of moderate Syrian rebels, an authority that expires Dec. 11.
Lawmakers are bracing for a broader fight next year over a new authorization to use military force to replace the post-Sept. 11 law and the one crafted for the Iraq war 11 years ago.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/13/dempsey-specter-more-is-troops/18967911/
Army
Combat
Iraq
ISIS
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 12
7
7
0
My question to President Obama, Gen Dempsey and Mr. Hagel is, what are the rules of engagement for those "no boots on the gound' that are on the groud troops if/when they are attacked, engaged or ambushed............duck and run? Now the President has asked Congress to for 5-6 billion more to send 1500 more "no boots on the ground" troops. Some in Congress are starting to ask questions, but the one question that hasn't been asked is, "Mr. President are you stupid or just think the rest of us are?
What happened to the Powell Doctrine? If we send our Soldiers into harms way (again) we do not send them unless the American People approve of it, we do not send them unless we mean to Win, and we send them with enough force and fire power to get the job done...in other words to win! We have not done that since Desert Storm and look what it has gotten us. When will enough of this be enough!
What ever happened to "lessons learned?" Apparently this administration hasn't learned any.
Ok, I'm done ranting...for now! thank you!
What happened to the Powell Doctrine? If we send our Soldiers into harms way (again) we do not send them unless the American People approve of it, we do not send them unless we mean to Win, and we send them with enough force and fire power to get the job done...in other words to win! We have not done that since Desert Storm and look what it has gotten us. When will enough of this be enough!
What ever happened to "lessons learned?" Apparently this administration hasn't learned any.
Ok, I'm done ranting...for now! thank you!
(7)
(0)
LTC Dr Richard Wasserman, LTC (R)
Nice rant. We all would like those questions answered. We need an end game----not we will make it up as we go along. Also, we don't need to tell the bad guys what that plan is, either.
(2)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SGM Mikel Dawson
ROE: Remember you are not combat troops nor are you boots on ground.
1. Can carry weapon sling/holstered, no mag
2. If fired upon once, duck and run for cover, you may unsling weapon to move faster
3. If receiving automatic fire you may insert 1 20 round mag, but do not lock or load (you are carrying 30 round mags, so no locking)
4. If three or more are charging you you may lock and load a 30 round mag, but must fire over their heads.
5. If three or more enemy get with in arms length, bend over and kiss your behind good bye.
6. If you have 4 or more enemy charging you may fire for effect, but make sure you have the correct count first.
1. Can carry weapon sling/holstered, no mag
2. If fired upon once, duck and run for cover, you may unsling weapon to move faster
3. If receiving automatic fire you may insert 1 20 round mag, but do not lock or load (you are carrying 30 round mags, so no locking)
4. If three or more are charging you you may lock and load a 30 round mag, but must fire over their heads.
5. If three or more enemy get with in arms length, bend over and kiss your behind good bye.
6. If you have 4 or more enemy charging you may fire for effect, but make sure you have the correct count first.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
One of my friends put it best: "In 2008, they said that if I voted for McCain, we'd be in Iraq until 2016! Little did they know how right they would be!"
(7)
(0)
SSG Jason Cherry
SGT Steve Vincent, good luck outlawing Islam in a country that is quite literally in the heart of the Muslim world.
(1)
(0)
MSG(P) Michael Warrick
The decision to pull the troops out when indeed cost more lives if we do send more Soldiers back to Iraq.
(0)
(0)
SGT Steve Vincent
I agree it would be pretty much impossible, which is why if our leadership had been smart, we would have just stomped them back to the Stone Age and just left. As for the whole Obama sending love letters to the Ayatollah, why exactly is he not under arrest, pending a military tribunal for sedition and treason, illegally contacting the head of a terrorist state? And before someone says Iran isn't a terrorist state, try telling that to all the Soldiers who were killed either directly by Iranian agents, or indirectly by EFPs which were made by Iranians, in East Baghdad. Not to mention, they are officially listed as such by the State Department. And wasn't it Nancy Pelosi who went to Damascus in 2007, to have talks with the Assad regime, against orders from the White House? Why exactly is she still in office 7 years later, instead of Leavenworth? Oh right, we don't enforce laws in this country if you have enough influence and power...
(0)
(0)
SSG Jason Cherry
Stomping them into dirt and leaving would have led us to the same point with less lives and limbs lost. However, bombing peoples into the dirt never wins wars when the fight is about ideology. You cannot win a war with ideology. You can only establish an understanding, or at a minimum, a tentative peace.
Our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan all stem from jumping into war with no clear goals and objectives. Had we gone in with clear goals and objectives, the wars would have been handled differently and I believe both would have had a more positive outcome.
Our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan all stem from jumping into war with no clear goals and objectives. Had we gone in with clear goals and objectives, the wars would have been handled differently and I believe both would have had a more positive outcome.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
This is how I see this playing out. The combat advisors that are there are going to draw this out until 2016 campaigning begins. That way President Obama will authorize boots on the ground. I assume the President will say something along the terms of the ISIS threat has gotten out of control and with their ability to move in and out of Syria, America cannot stand by anymore and watch ISIS disrupt the region therefore the President will authorize something like 20-30,000 troops
(5)
(0)
CMC (Join to see)
That sounds about right to me. Also, I feel that Americans are the only ones along with our brothers in Great Britian and Candida that will be most effective in stoping this ISIL group. These other Islamic nations run from every conflict and let their countries fall. I have to give the Kurds some kudos for fighting for there town. I just am tired of seeing our people die. Unfortunatly, we have to handle this until the virus is dead in the water and peace is established across the world. Its an everlasting war. My methods of stopping this are not politically correct so there is no need to mention that here.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google