Dempsey raises specter of more U.S. troops in fight

2014-11-13T13:37:12-05:00

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/

Response by Cpl Michael Strickler made Nov 13 at 2014 1:59 PM

2014-11-13T13:59:24-05:00

I just hope that if it is done that it is done right this time.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 2:00 PM

2014-11-13T14:00:17-05:00

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!"

Response by SGT James Hastings made Nov 13 at 2014 2:45 PM

2014-11-13T14:45:04-05:00

If this turns out like a lot of the battles did those men, competent as they are and well equipped seem to be facing a well run enemy, not like Desert Storm. In addition, it seems to this not so well informed person, that when Muslims are fighting each other it is hard to know where American troops stand caught between both Muslim groups who to some degree at least resent the American presence.

Response by SSG Mannix Brooks made Nov 13 at 2014 4:33 PM

2014-11-13T16:33:25-05:00

After what just happened in Canada and looking at all the people who have left their countries to join ISIL this is a fight worth fighting before we are next.

Response by MSG(P) Michael Warrick made Nov 13 at 2014 6:19 PM

2014-11-13T18:19:05-05:00

The decision to pull the troops out when indeed cost more lives if we do send more Soldiers back to Iraq.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Nov 13 at 2014 6:47 PM

2014-11-13T18:47:31-05:00

No Troops on the ground.

Well, we are sending advisor...but no combat troops.

We are going to send a MODEST number of American forces.

General Dempsey, can you define what a 'modest' number might be? Well, with the draw down...everyone we have left.

The specter was raised when the Administration could not ignore what was happening any longer.

I still say, Iraq wanted us gone...let us know how that worked out for you.

Additionally, let's support the Kurds in the North. The Turks, Russian and Persians can go lump it. Support the Kurdish People’s Protection Units and Peshmerga. The Kurdish women are more willing, and able, to fight than the entire Iraqi Army.

I say we back the Kurds until they control a fresh water port, Basra/Abadan or, if our Turkish friends don't want to remain allies, Adana?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 9:36 PM

2014-11-13T21:36:47-05:00

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!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 13 at 2014 11:12 PM

2014-11-13T23:12:05-05:00

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

Response by SGT Patrick McCullough made Nov 14 at 2014 12:58 AM

2014-11-14T00:58:13-05:00

I love it, I told everyone 4 years ago Obama would start another war before he left office. It's what dems do best, but it's 2 sides of the same coin. Not to mention the Iranian and Syrian backed civil war in Iraq was never resolved fully 5-7 years ago so throw that in the mix and let's start a fire.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 17 at 2015 7:57 PM

2015-04-17T19:57:05-04:00

Put a noose around Mosul and find an army to finish them in that city. I wish it was that easy.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2015 11:23 PM

2015-04-17T23:23:44-04:00

Complete waste of time help to restore order to a country that can't or refuses to take care of themselves.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-04-18T14:31:07-04:00

Shias won't fight to defend Sunnis, Sunnis won't fight for the Shia. Everyone hates the Kurds. The senseless geopolitical boundaries of British colonialism no longer work. The are some tough days ahead for Baghdad, but they need to find their own way. A LOT more people need to die on all sides before they'll all put aside their grievances and work together against Daesh. In any case, we can't fix fight their fights for them. If we do, we're just addressing symptoms while ignoring the festering problems.