Obama Orders Boots on the Ground!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Obama Orders Boots on the Ground

Obama Orders Boots on the Ground!

10:07 AM, SEP 16, 2014 BY WILLIAM KRISTOL

We're at war. We're putting boots on the ground. We're not waiting around for the host nation's government to get its affairs in order, or for a regional coalition to commit first. The president has apparently overcome his reluctance to use the military, his worries about a commitment to intervene without an exit strategy, and his usual reluctance to acknowledge (even implicitly) that his administration was wrong when it assured us that there was nothing much for us to worry about.

Aren't there other parts of the U.S government suited to carry on this fight? If not, shouldn't there be? Max Boot suggested building such a non-military civilian ability in the pages of this magazine over a decade ago. Surely an administration committed to smart power would have developed the civilian capabilities to fight a virus without deploying 3,000 troops?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-boots-ground_805212.html

Top military official opens door to ground troops in ISIS fight, despite Obama pledge

A week after President Obama vowed not to get "dragged into another ground war in Iraq," his top military leader opened the door to just that.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey addressed the possibility of U.S. ground forces getting involved in the fight against the Islamic State during blunt testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. He said he would consider recommending that option if the international coalition being formed proves ineffective.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/16/joint-chiefs-chairman-opens-door-to-us-boots-on-ground-in-isis-fight/

[GandD 5,966]

~~Title edited to match article~~

[JohnR! 5,495]

It all will depend on how the coalition works. Fortunately this time around we have real nations with real assets to participate in the effort. This time around we're not going it alone.

[Teddy B 17,251]

It all will depend on how the coalition works. Fortunately this time around we have real nations with real assets to participate in the effort. This time around we're not going it alone.

We'll see how long that lasts. A good number of our "coalition nations" were all too quick to pull out of Iraq in the past and the US ended up going it alone except for maybe the Brits.

[Karee 4,189]

I'm wondering why we're giving Israel all this money and military support? Shouldn't they be cleaning up these messes for us? I mean the whole argument is that Israel is our #1 ally in the region. What have they done for us lately?

[JohnR! 5,495]

I think Britain and Canada were the only heavy hitters during the last campaign. This time around we have France, Australia, and more important still, a few of the Arab nations. This is the real deal.

We'll see how long that lasts. A good number of our "coalition nations" were all too quick to pull out of Iraq in the past and the US ended up going it alone except for maybe the Brits.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I'm wondering why we're giving Israel all this money and military support? Shouldn't they be cleaning up these messes for us? I mean the whole argument is that Israel is our #1 ally in the region. What have they done for us lately?

Word is they thumped a homass dude in the streets of New York for no reason using krav maga. This is especially newsworthy because they were having a knish, lox and sliced brisket at the time.

Edited September 16, 2014 by ExExpat

[Teddy B 17,251]

I think Britain and Canada were the only heavy hitters during the last campaign. This time around we have France, Australia, and more important still, a few of the Arab nations. This is the real deal.

Australia and Poland contributed troops as well. I didn't remember that there were a total of 49 original members of "The Coalition Of The Willing". It was more like a coalition of 4 and 45 silent partners.

In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."^[2]

The Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq. The original list released in March 2003 included 46 members.^[3] In April 2003, the list was updated to include 49 countries, though it was reduced to 48 after Costa Rica objected to its inclusion. Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.

The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.^[4]

In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.^[5][6] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and updates.^[3]

By August 2009, all non-U.S. coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.^[7] As a result, the Multinational Force - Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces - Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Weekly Standard is off base or rather unhinged - as usual, I might add. We're not at war where the boots are to be on the ground - even if some lawmakers like to call it a "war on Ebola". The boots on the ground are really brains and subject matter expertise - we're sending military engineers and medical personnel to help contain and combat the Ebola outbreak. Congress is fully behind this effort - both sides of the isle probably with the exception of the right lunatic fringe around Cruz and Bachmann. What we have here is the typical Weekly Standard's radical right wing nonsense trying to whip up a frenzy among its radical right wing readers. And as we see in the OP, it appears to be working to plan.

[UncleBeer 244]

Fortunately this time around we have real nations with real assets to participate in the effort.

HaHa; good one. Here's the list of "real assets". It reads more like a list of who won't participate in a substantial manner.

[Rattlehead 69]

You mean hashtags aren't doing the trick?

[JohnR! 5,495]

More like the coalition of the living dead... W's finest hour...

Australia and Poland contributed troops as well. I didn't remember that there were a total of 49 original members of "The Coalition Of The Willing". It was more like a coalition of 4 and 45 silent partners.

[Rob L 3,811]

HaHa; good one. Here's the list of "real assets". It reads more like a list of who won't participate in a substantial manner.

Lets see...

You dont have Iran, China or Russia.....who else are you waiting for before you feel we can act?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's funny how a thread that is headlined "Obama orders boots on the ground" goes off on a tangent to talk about the campaign against ISIS. The boots on the ground and ISIS are two separate and totally unrelated issues. There's no ISIS where Obama ordered boots on the ground - with substantial bipartisan support from Congress, by the way. The boots that have been ordered on the ground are military engineers and medical personnel to help contain and combat the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

[UncleBeer 244]

.....who else are you waiting for before you feel we can act?

Whadya mean "who else"? Where in that CNN do you see ANY mention of countries sending "boots on the ground"? None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Some "coalition". Nice going, O'bama.