It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US military considers sending combat troops back to Iraq

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   


The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the use of American troops directly in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama doubled troop levels there.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

US military considers sending combat troops back to Iraq


Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting.

“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 US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” Dempsey said.


Well, this is unsurprising.

The US military is considering the prospects of deploying combat troops to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS in key areas such as Mosul, al-Anbar province and Ninewa province. I wonder what Obama's and Congress' opinions will be on the announcements. Surely any such deployment would be met with difficulties.

With that said, i think the deployment of troops would greatly aid in the fight against ISIS, and may even be necessary to halt the slow advancement of the terrorist organisation. Dempsey says that if troops were to be deployed, the numbers would be no where near those during the last war.




posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital


The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the use of American troops directly in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama doubled troop levels there.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

US military considers sending combat troops back to Iraq


Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting.

“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 US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” Dempsey said.


Well, this is unsurprising.

The US military is considering the prospects of deploying combat troops to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS in key areas such as Mosul, al-Anbar province and Ninewa province. I wonder what Obama's and Congress' opinions will be on the announcements. Surely any such deployment would be met with difficulties.

With that said, i think the deployment of troops would greatly aid in the fight against ISIS, and may even be necessary to halt the slow advancement of the terrorist organisation. Dempsey says that if troops were to be deployed, the numbers would be no where near those during the last war.


The military always is think of contingency plans. Whether they actually go or not rests in the hands of the politicians.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

I think many people saw this one coming.

"We won't have boots on the ground!"
(well, maybe just a few)
"We're probably gonna put some boots on the ground!"
(but not that many)

Next it'll be "We need more troops to make this work!" (But we won't be there long)
and then "Well, it's gonna take a little longer than we thought!" (But we're winning)
and then, 10 years later.... "rinse and repeat"

I hate this. I hate that my friends and family are going to end up back over there.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
mhmmmm...
all those troops American troops on the Iraq Syrian border will come in handy when Obama puts his latest scheme into action...


Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama has asked his national security team for another review of the U.S. policy toward Syria after realizing that ISIS may not be defeated without a political transition in Syria and the removal of President Bashar al-Assad, senior U.S. officials and diplomats tell CNN.

The review is a tacit admission that the initial strategy of trying to confront ISIS first in Iraq and then take the group's fighters on in Syria, without also focusing on the removal of al-Assad, was a miscalculation.


www.cnn.com...

Pay no attention to all those American troops and tanks on your border Mr. Assad they are just there to help get rid of ISIS.


edit on 13-11-2014 by Tardacus because: Added Link



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
we are going to have boots on the ground there forever..just like korea...

and people are going to be all "but theyre fighting for our freedom"

eh

figures



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
Well, this is unsurprising.


Yea I think everyone saw this coming.


The US military is considering the prospects of deploying combat troops to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS in key areas such as Mosul, al-Anbar province and Ninewa province. I wonder what Obama's and Congress' opinions will be on the announcements. Surely any such deployment would be met with difficulties.


As it should be. We don't need to send troops back there.


With that said, i think the deployment of troops would greatly aid in the fight against ISIS, and may even be necessary to halt the slow advancement of the terrorist organisation.


Of course deployment of troops on the ground will aid in the fight. That goes without saying.


Dempsey says that if troops were to be deployed, the numbers would be no where near those during the last war.


For now...

As an Iraq war veteran I say NO to this. If we send troops back, we will just get sucked up into ANOTHER never ending police occupation conflict.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Hey, gotta send them somewhere. Not enough missiles and stuff being expended. Raytheon shareholders gotta eat.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I am so sick of the corporate war machine. Could it REALLY be worse if we just stayed the hell out of some of these conflicts? In my life I would NEVER harm someone who wasn't first threatening me and mine. Why can't the Government show the same restraint?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   
America is in the business of exporting war. THEY don't call it the military/INDUSTRIAL complex for nothing. The Bush neoconservative's are still in complete control! Obama is their lapdog ,, the GOP. should be pleased; I really don't understand their hatred of him; he is only doing what his corporate masters tell him to do.

Now with the gop back in complete control again; business is bound to pick up even more! Check out the board of directors at Halliburton and tell me I'm wrong.


edit on 13-11-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Of course they do, they have been "considering" it since before they wanted to launch a war against Assad.
All they need to do is convince us, and thats proving to be hard after Bush and Blairs war crimes in Iraq.
So they are just going to do it incrementally. They have got to get their oil fields back too, so it kills two birds with one stone.
edit on 201411America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 13 Nov 2014 13:31:51 -06001114 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
This is just horrible news to me. This warning by General Dempsy isn't just a "Mission Creep" statement.. I just can't believe it. When this was done in the Sixties and in the Seventies in Viet Nam people took to the damn streets and protested. They were students. It was Veterans against the war. It wasn't a war we wanted! We have become far too desensitized to this Machine built by greedy people who profit from it's spoils. Where are the people? Haven't we as a nation the right to decide when enough is enough? However, as frustrating as this BS is, we did this to ourselves by losing control of our Government.



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Third time is a charm!

Mission Accomplished



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

It's not going to work. Here we are walking around in circles. Groundhogs day all over again... Back into Iraq, back into the proxy war, oil prices are going to go back up.


YAY



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
well maybe we can arm our troops with AK-47s and Chinese made bullets. They have sent every other industry to China so maybe we should send that one too. Take the profit out of war.

They imposed a "sin"tax on alcohol and tobacco, maybe we should tax bombs and missiles as well. Nothing kills you faster than smoking 2 packs a day except for 500lb bombs.

This is where we need people like Rush Limbaugh (can't stand him but people listen to him) and Jon Stewart to come together and expose the money trail and war for profit. The link between Cheney and Halliburton and the millions of dollars in contracts. The money spent on groups like Blackwater. The ties our elected officials have with defense contractors and the profits they stand to make.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Everyone knew this will happen except Obama.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Again, ISIS serves the US government interests very well. The country is effectively partitioned into 3 separate states now so the US will go back there and formalise the arrangements.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
He might have to divert some of the men to fight in the Ukraine if he keeps upsetting Russia and you really don't want to upset Russia.

Just how much more money do those US military contractors want



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital


The top-ranking officer in the American military said on Thursday that the US is actively considering the use of American troops directly in the toughest upcoming fights against the Islamic State (Isis) in Iraq, less than a week after Barack Obama doubled troop levels there.

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, indicated to the House of Representatives armed services committee that the strength of Isis relative to the Iraqi army may be such that he would recommend abandoning Obama’s oft-repeated pledge against returning US ground troops to combat in Iraq.

US military considers sending combat troops back to Iraq


Retaking the critical city of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest, and re-establishing the border between Iraq and Syria that Isis has erased “will be fairly complex terrain” for the Iraqi security forces that the US is once again supporting.

“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 US forces, but we’re certainly considering it,” Dempsey said.


Well, this is unsurprising.

The US military is considering the prospects of deploying combat troops to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS in key areas such as Mosul, al-Anbar province and Ninewa province. I wonder what Obama's and Congress' opinions will be on the announcements. Surely any such deployment would be met with difficulties.

With that said, i think the deployment of troops would greatly aid in the fight against ISIS, and may even be necessary to halt the slow advancement of the terrorist organisation. Dempsey says that if troops were to be deployed, the numbers would be no where near those during the last war.


America in first then Britain.



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
America is in the business of exporting war. THEY don't call it the military/INDUSTRIAL complex for nothing. The Bush neoconservative's are still in complete control! Obama is their lapdog ,, the GOP. should be pleased; I really don't understand their hatred of him; he is only doing what his corporate masters tell him to do.

Now with the gop back in complete control again; business is bound to pick up even more! Check out the board of directors at Halliburton and tell me I'm wrong.








Really ! Ya had to go there ? Political polarization after twenty years of a concerted
Military effort to curtail an alleged threat to America.
Not really up on civics but I don't believe Halliburton is the decider.
Congress, I assume still has the final say on funding this atrocity.
"Representative Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who opposes a ' NEW CONGRESSIONAL WAR AUTHORIZATION , said Hagel’s rhetoric about Isis was reminiscent of 2002 arguments for invading Iraq." Just a lot of finger pointing. They are worthless but keep the money flowing. The perfect storm.
The eternal War on Global Terrorism. Our grandchildren will be engaged in all this moronic crap. The above poster is correct. This will NEVER END ! " The United States of Stupid " Bill Maher
edit on 14-11-2014 by dazbog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
It is no coincidence that this was done AFTER the failed election of the Dems.
OBAMA DOENS'T NEED TO PLACATE HIS BASE SINCE THEY HAVE GOTTEN BEATEN BAD. So he could now approve the war...

Goes to show us again that Obama has no beliefs he is just another politician who caters to his political group.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join