In the history of mankind, many republics have risen, have flourished for a less or greater time, and then have fallen because their citizens lost the power of governing themselves and thereby of governing their state. TR


Obama Sends Another 350 Troops to Iraq

Ah yes, the incrementalism continues. When are we going to learn to fight wars?

From the White House:

Today, the President authorized the Department of Defense to fulfill a Department of State request for approximately 350 additional U.S. military personnel to protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel in Baghdad, Iraq.

This action was taken at the recommendation of the Department of Defense after an extensive interagency review, and is part of the President’s commitment to protect our personnel and facilities in Iraq as we continue to support the Government of Iraq in its fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  These additional forces will not serve in a combat role . . .

In addition to our efforts to protect our personnel, we will continue to support the Government of Iraq’s efforts to counter ISIL, which poses a threat not only to Iraq, but to the broader Middle East and U.S. personnel and interests in the region. 

The President will be consulting this week with NATO allies regarding additional actions to take against ISIL and to develop a broad-based international coalition to implement a comprehensive strategy to protect our people and to support our partners in the fight against ISIL.  

Not serve in a combat role? So what are they there for, to explain the Dewey Decimal System to ISIS? I assume if someone shoots at them, they’ll shoot back. Or shoot first. Please tell me those are the rules of engagement . . .

36 thoughts on “Obama Sends Another 350 Troops to Iraq”

  1. Obama likes the 1997 version of George Lucas’ Star Wars in which Greedo shot first (somehow missing Han Solo at point blank range) and Han fired only in self defense.

    Obama doesn’t want anyone to think he’s a “scoundrel”

          1. AJ — I can’t reply to you on the dissident thread. But actually you were on target with the hate thing …. the way it worked back in the Soviet day — once you had evolved to the hate thought stage and they determined paranoia set in then you were packed off to asylums /institutional care.

            So, taking a leap, all those cries for mental tests for firearm purchases etc. … yeah, bad idea.


      1. My thoughts exactly. How can they protect, if not equipped? Are they to be cannon fodder? Does Obama have a better strategy than the one he used to rescue our personnel in Benghazi? That last question is meant to be sarcastic. American lives are on the line. Obama hasn’t got a good track record when it comes to protecting us here or abroad.

    1. Of course he should have!! Maybe something about being “enraged”. But he’s contemplating, considering, cogitating, chewing his cud, chillaxing, zenning out, cooling his jets. All in careful preparation for doing exactly the wrong thing. What a guy!!! Hope he finds out what it means to “Lead With Your Behind” in the Arab World!!!

  2. Has the DOD given these soldiers hover boards or hover boots so the soldiers don’t put their boots on the ground?

    It is time to start carpet bombing every known ISIS known location. I wish Obama would resign and go play golf. I would rather have Biden there.

  3. Did the Department of State only request 350 military personnel? I think that they requested more, and O said no?
    It was stated several times on the news today, many plans, options have been presented to him. This is what he decides on?
    I am also concerned for them. I would hate to be one of the 350 sent over there with no proper plan.

    1. Maybe Sheik Obama has instructed them to wrap themselves in explosive vests and destroy our enemies when they get close. This will earn them 72 Michelles in Paradise.

    2. The military, CIA, DOD, etc. present strategies to Obama. He doesn’t like any of them, because he is Obama, the smartest man in any room. He does it his way.

  4. I say just ‘let George do it’! George W. Bush, that is. None of this would have happened on Bush’s watch! Rightly or wrongly, Bush was responsible for starting the war, but he darn well would have followed through with the SOF agreement to ensure that all the blood and treasure lost was not in vain. He is an honorable man.

  5. Here I thought the first 1,500 were there to protect our people, etc, etc.
    It would seem to be more prudent to remove “our people” to safety than to put armed personnel at risk.

    How stupid they think we are, how gullible to fancy words and phrases we seem so that any action is supposed to seem benign.
    It’s the mission creep all over again, and it will keep creeping until the first soldiers are killed, then it will be war with an enemy elusive and slippery as an oiled snake.

    1. Great point Srdem65, regarding the 1,500 that were sent to protect our people, etc.
      Than gracepmc said if there are civilians, it’s about time they get out.
      Now we have 1,850. Now what?

  6. Sending 350 troops to Iraq stem the ‘ISIL ‘ killing fields’… is like placing a Band-Aid on a Aortic Wound….

    God Bless our Military………

  7. I feel sorry for these troops. It wouldn’t surprise me if they were sent over there without weapons because heaven forbid if they shoot someone who is trying to kill them.

    1. Don’t know how old anybody else is but I can remember when U.N. Peacekeepers (seems like they were always Danish) were UNARMED because the rest of the world knew if you messed with the Peacekeepers, you’d have to deal with the United States Marine Corps and NO petty dictator wanted to do THAT.

    2. This is Obama’s way. Look at Afghanistan — more casualties under Obama than during the entire campaign under Bush and now there are barely enough troops there to ensure their own safety.

      Drip drip drip — not a good way either to accomplish an objective (if there is one) or to protect ourselves — by which those brave military men and women who are having to serve in this way under this CiC who dithers.

  8. War, any war, is a horrible, violent, and destructive (in more ways than one) endeavor. Yet they have been fought since man figured out that if he picked up a club or rock he could kill his fellow man.

    Wars are won by leaders who instill in their troops feelings of honor, trust, courage, and a belief that the battle being fought was for a good greater than self.

    The great generals, prime ministers, presidents all had certain things in common when it came to facing down an enemy. They had backbone! They had internal courage. They had pride, true pride, in the men and women who would fight for them. They believed in their country. They allowed the troops to use all that was in their power to win.

    When any country fights half-assed, as the US has done on so many occasions over the past 50 yrs, that country is going to lose. You fight as if it is your last stand. You fight with all your heart, soul, mind, and body. And you don’t stop fighting until you pry the last weapon from the cold, dead, hands of the enemy.

    1. Morning KDW…
      Yes, but behind Dunkirk there was an unwavering Winston Churchill. I’m afraid this will be more like Dunkin Donuts with the Obama administration sitting around drinking coffee, eating donut holes, and talking how whatever eventual disaster was some one else’s fault.

      There is a quote out there by Churchill something like wars are not won by evacuations. Or it would seem by leading from or with your behind.

  9. Pingback: Must Know Headlines —

Comments are closed.