McCain: More US Boots on Ground in Iraq, Syria

Army Times — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:34:27 -0500

From: Army Times

WASHINGTON — A powerful US senator is pushing President Barack Obama to put more American boots on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says "it is obvious that President Obama currently has no coherent strategy to achieve his stated goal to 'degrade and ultimately destroy' [the Islamic State]."

Part of any such plan, McCain said in a statement Monday, should recognize that "American boots on the ground are necessary to defeat [the group] in Iraq and Syria."

Specifically, McCain wants to embed more US special operations forces as advisers with US allies on the ground.

The hawkish 2008 GOP presidential nominee also wants Obama to adopt an unambiguous stance against Assad's rule, referring to embattled Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

McCain also repeated his support for a no-fly zone to shield civilians, provide cover to US allies fighting Assad and the Islamic State, and "moving quickly to provide robust support to moderate units of the Free Syrian Army."

"Until such actions are taken, [Islamic State] will continue to grow and pose an even greater danger to our national security interests," said McCain, who issued a very similar call Sunday on "Face the Nation."

Obama, during his annual State of the Union address last Tuesday, said "American leadership – including our military power – is stopping [Islamic State's] advance."

While Republicans like McCain are increasingly saying only American military power can beat back the violent Sunni group, Obama touts the coalition he has built, which includes several Arab nations performing actions such as air strikes on IS group targets.

"Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad coalition, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group," Obama said.

"We're also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help us in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism," he said. "This effort will take time. It will require focus. But we will succeed."

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/congress/2015/01/26/isis-terrorism-iraq-syria-obama/22349661/

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 9:38 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:38:19 -0500

Feels inevitable...

Response by CPT Chris Loomis made Jan 27 at 2015 9:40 AM

CPT Chris Loomis — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:40:54 -0500

I agree with CSM Mike Oldsen.

Response by Sgt Packy Flickinger made Jan 27 at 2015 10:07 AM

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:07:37 -0500

But... But... But mr pres said no boots on the ground. Obama would NEVER lie to us.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 10:20 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:20:53 -0500

I'm sort of pissed that I prepared for the upcoming darkness known as garrison Army and volunteered for recruiting now.. What I would give for another combat deployment and this would may be the happiest person ever.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Jan 27 at 2015 10:23 AM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:23:01 -0500

- Agree with Senator McCain that the administration does not "have a coherent strategy to achieve his stated goal to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State".
- Agree that part of that strategy must include some sort of viable ground element.
- Premature at this point to argue about what sort of ground element, how large, what sort of capabilities and those types of discussions. Place US forces on the ground before having a coherent strategy is placing the cart in front of the horse.
- The US strategy against Islamic terrorists (such as ISIL) should be a global strategy first and for most. What to do about ISIS is an operational level issue specific to one theater of the war. Think in terms of WWII.
WWII Radical Islam
Strategic GE first, then Japan Whole of Government strategy (DIME)
Operational Several theaters of war Several theaters (Africa, Middle East, Europe)
Tactical Different tactics used different theaters Need different tactics in different theaters

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 10:42 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:42:14 -0500

To what end? We've already been there once and abandoned it with the results that we are seeing now. So what would the mission be? What would constitute "Success?" How much blood and treasure are we willing to expend to accomplish the mission (whatever it may be)? What are the clearly defined benchmarks of success? What threshold would constitute mission failure and we cut our losses and leave?

These are all questions that we need answers to before one person steps foot on any battlefield. Without these answers, we're just spinning our wheels.

Response by CSM Johnny Baldwin made Jan 27 at 2015 11:00 AM

CSM Johnny Baldwin — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:00:27 -0500

In the immortal words of former President Lyndon B. Johnson, "They call upon American Boys to do the job that Asian (Arab) Boys should be doing." Unless we are prepared to have generations of troops on the ground then there is no use to go. We've had forces on the ground in Europe for 70 years now and in Korea 65 years. One of the other posters talks about a global strategy against ISIS and radical Islamists and that doesn't necessarily call for boots on the ground. We assisted the Taliban in driving the Russians out of Afghanistan when it was in our interest. We did not place boots on the ground. We choose a side and supported them. Some might say if we had supported those people after the Russians left and then used or State Department to help them develop their government we might never have had the problems that we currently face and we have faced in the last 14 years. Intelligence networks, drones, support for indigenous forces, and tactical strikes are the way to go in my opinion.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Jan 27 at 2015 11:33 AM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:33:05 -0500

As long as we do not make it our war. That has often been the mistake in the past. We move in great number, take over the war, making it our war, and becoming the occupational force, the hated invaders.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Jan 27 at 2015 11:45 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:45:20 -0500

Drawdown in the Middle East? What drawdown? Or, are we draw-upping?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 12:05 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:05:24 -0500

if you are in leadership and did not see this coming ,,, well you might want to try a new job

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Jan 27 at 2015 12:33 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:33:50 -0500

At least as far as media reporting shows, ISIS is a much bigger threat and reason to intervene than ol Saddam Insane. I hope it isn't offensive to say that I kind of miss the ruthless dictator and his ability to keep some sort of stability. From an American perspective, he was a ruthless tyrant and guilty of unspeakable atrocities against his own people. ISIS makes him look like a Disney character.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 27 at 2015 12:43 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:43:09 -0500

We all knew this was coming. No way can you control ground from the air.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 12:48 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 12:48:05 -0500

Yes. Im ready to go send me over please!!!!!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 3:10 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:10:54 -0500

With the recent attacks in France and the plot foiled in Belgium you would think this would be more of a combined world effort to stop ISIS. And we continue to foil lone wolf attacks here in the states. ISIS is having a major affect on the world and our stratagies are still very confusing. Really doesn't look like much of a coalition. I'm thinking the plan if we ignore them they will go away is failing!

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 3:34 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:34:42 -0500

Oh good. Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria. Can't wait.

Also, a "no fly" zone assumes that you have air superiority. Syria has one of the most advanced integrated air defense systems in the world. How many strikes on Syrian air defense targets are we willing to make to enforce a "no-fly" zone? How many do you suppose it will take before the Syrian air defense network starts shooting at our planes, rather than just letting them strike ISIS targets within their borders?

As long as our current counter-tactic to the Syrian air defense network is the state department asking them not to shoot down coalition aircraft, maybe we should take it easy on the anti-regime rhetoric.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jan 27 at 2015 3:37 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:37:19 -0500

I think I've heard this one before.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 3:57 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:57:47 -0500

Can't say I'm surprised at all. Just when we are drawing down across the services we now have a threat that requires more service members and a bigger presence.

Now we have reasons to justify not only more troops but Sen. McCain will get to keep the A-10 (the ones in his home state) because nothing supports ground troops better.

Can we do better than we have in the past? Maybe if like others have said we define victory and define our strategy. This will take military leader to do, not politicians that are lobbying for whatever.

If we let the military run the engagements we may have a shot at doing this right.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2015 4:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:00:11 -0500

I haven't been in that long. But I know enough to see that they (suites and bean counters) are working the issue that we will officially be the boots on ground soon enough. We all know its a bad idea. But that's how it goes. The call will be made and we will answer.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 27 at 2015 4:26 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 16:26:01 -0500

The United States military is NOT in the business of "National Defense." We are in the business of "Global Stability." We maintain a large military so other countries don't build large militaries. The less militaries there are, the less chance of a "global conflict" erupting there is.

The current situation in Iraq/Syria threatens Stability in that region. That makes it our business.

I'm all for having a minimal presence in the Gulf. I don't want to be there. No one wants to be there. If I could pull everyone back to the US, I would. However, we knew when we went in, that we would be there for decades.

We're still in Germany, Italy, Okinawa, and Korea. It's our continued presence that makes the place stable.

We can't do that with drones in there are, or even just pilots waving. We have to have "boots on the ground" or a sizable Show of Force that makes it not worth while for idiots not to get silly ideas.

Response by SSG Jim Foreman made Jan 27 at 2015 5:50 PM

SSG Jim Foreman — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:50:03 -0500

I think everyone of us see the troop count is going up and in the real world there are more troops there than the Government tells. If the POTUS doesn’t send more his replacement (in 2 yrs) will have to.

Response by PO1 Autumn Sandeen made Jan 27 at 2015 5:54 PM

PO1 Autumn Sandeen — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:54:32 -0500

Not only no, but hell no!

Response by Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP made Jan 27 at 2015 8:49 PM

Lt Col Fred Marheine, PMP — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 20:49:09 -0500

I find this "proposal" from Sen McCain ludicrous - and the irony of (accurately) accusing the administration of using airpower to obfuscate not having a strategy followed by the prescription of "send in ground forces" -- truly stunning.

Defeating ISIS/ISIL (whatever) will not occur on the battlefield, but rather in the hearts and minds of the people who support their ideology and subsequently their behaviors / actions. Could US military power inflict a "defeat" on the "forces" of ISIS? With sufficient will and commitment of resources, almost certainly. Would that military defeat actually defeat ISIS and reduce the threat they pose to US security interests? Not in the least - in fact I think it likely it will exacerbate those threats as the application of direct military force reinforces the basic tenets of the ideology. We've already seen at least two full-blown demonstrations of this reality.

We need to focus our "attack" on cutting them off from the population that provides their support, manpower, and funding - and kinetic force is one of the least effective tools to use in that attack. The problem is we lack the will to execute the necessary attack with sufficient ruthlessness since the target must be those who promote the ideology: state-based governments who promote their own self-interests (power and personal wealth) by deflecting the attention of their populace towards "the Great Satan."

Our best hope for long-term success is to create the conditions that induces a change in the decision calculus for these state actors such that they view stamping out the ideology as their most appropriate course of action, i.e. in their best interests. It will take at least a generation and more likely two to defeat the ideology - and we simply have no stomach for it. At this point, our Country can't even agree it exists and intends to kill us - so to what purpose do we insert ground forces?

Response by SPC Michael Frugoli made Jan 27 at 2015 10:06 PM

SPC Michael Frugoli — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 22:06:42 -0500

I wish i knew the underlining agenda. The US really needs to get the priorities in order. War i guess is inevitable. but really not worth the lives of these men and women. if they attack us attack them back. just my opinion.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 28 at 2015 9:42 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 09:42:44 -0500

As someone who is currently boots on ground in lovely Iraq I would have to say the following: before you put anymore boots on ground here, make it a DoD mission first. Remove ALL DoS assets from the AO or give DoD the lead on this, because the way it is now it isn't working out. Better yet, keep DoS here and give DoD full authority over the theater so that we can actually control how many troopers we have on ground at any given time. Next, if we're going to be boots on ground, then let's be boots on ground. Stop pussyfooting with it. Either we pull back our forces and let the Iraqis handle it or we go in and take this bitch back from ISIS with full force. We cannot continue to be "on the fence" with this. Iraq asked for our help, we came, Iraq is dictating how we help them while simultaneously keeping us from helping them. Sounds crazy, I know...but Iraqis have a crazy ass thought process. Either we convince them to allow us to help them (sounding crazy right now), or we leave and let them do this by themselves. Or we can just continue to sit here, do nothing, and end up in ground combat with ISIS anyway because they are bringing the fight to us. As far as Syria goes, we need to pick a flippin side and stick to it. We don't like Assad because he's a bastard, we're not arming the rebels because we don't want to help rebels overthrow a government (and thus the reason why a lot of them are joining ISIS), and of course ISIS is the current enemy. We need to figure out what we want to do and do it.

Or.....we can just continue to play the "no combat role" game. Continue to add to the illusion that we aren't already having no other option but to engage this threat. I'm cool with all options. My giveafuck-o-meter is pretty empty right now.