Dempsey: If Coalition Fails, We'll Need U.S. Boots on Ground Against ISIS

Townhall.com ^ | September 16, 2014 | Katie Pavlich

[Kaslin]

Testifying on Capitol Hill Tuesday in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that although "we're not there yet," the United States may eventually need to deploy U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS if a coalition and airstrikes fail to get the job done against the terror army.

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true but if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the United States then I of course would go back to the President and make a recommendation that we include the use of U.S. military ground forces. To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president," Dempsey said.

Gen. Martin Dempsey: US May Send in Ground Troops to Fight ISIS

President Obama has been adamant about keeping U.S. combat troops from re-engaging in conflict in Iraq. Currently 1600 U.S. troops and military personnel are stationed in Iraq as advisors to local forces. Last week in a speech to the nation, Obama said he was sending nearly 500 more advisors to the region.

Thanks to Jim Hoft for the video.

[Lorianne]

Yes, war can change things ... and then they can change back.

Also, we did not occupy Turkey for decades did we?

[Lorianne]

Also Turkey was not always the capital of the Islamic caliphate. That too has shifted over time.

[what's up]

Also Turkey was not always the capital of the Islamic caliphate. That too has shifted over time.

Kind of proves my point. The Islamic world CAN change with circumstances.

BTW...we did not occupy Turkey. But the British and French occupied the Levant until it was time to hand Israel over to the Jews. Think that would have happened if the Westerners weren't there?

At a time when Iran is trying to build an atomic weapon, it might be smart to have a large American presence right next door. That was Bush's strategy and Obama blew it.

[Lorianne]

Why do we need to be next door to Iran if because they were trying to build an atomic weapon? We can find out what they are doing and bomb them without having lots of troops on the ground next door. In fact if we were going to take out nuclear facilities it would be better if more of our people are out of the area.

I still don’t get why we need to be there ... unless there is some kind of massive payment involved. In which case the soldiers are getting screwed ... they aren’t even getting a share of the spoils as it was in historical warfare.

[what's up]

I think Iran and others are less apt to misbehave if they know our troops are in the area and ready to mobilize at a moment's notice.

If we had remained in Iraq, for example, ISIS wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as it did.

As far as bombing Iran...you can't indiscrimately bomb without intel. We would have had a lot more intel of the area with boots on the ground.

[pleasenotcalifornia]

A hundred years( Which I think you are talking about.) is chump change in an area of Muslim/ Christian conflict of over 1400 years.

[Lorianne]

You were talking about developing nuclear weapons.
Our troops on the ground next door can do nothing about that. We’d have to take out their facilities with airstrikes. Israel has no problem getting intel w/o putting large ground troops in place.

If we remain in Iraq a lot of things may or may not happen. How long do we stay there? 50 years? 100 years?

No matter when we go the place will devolve into internecine warfare .... as it has for millennia.

Again, what is there to gain for us unless we are getting paid vast sums by staying? In which case the soldiers are getting screwed because they are not sharing in the booty.

[VerySadAmerican]

Dempsey is just another political hack.

[what's up]

How long do we stay there? 50 years? 100 years?

Don't know. We've been in Japan/Germany now for over 50, the former Yugoslavia for 20 and currently the situation in the middle east is much more dangerous. It was foolish to pull out.

Speaking of Israel...I'm sure they would feel a lot safer knowing we had a large number of troops ready to defend her if necessary. On the contrary, we can do a lot more intel with those troops in place. 25,000 for example is much better cover for special ops to move when necessary.

[eartick]

Whatever?? What a childish term.

Keep them from securing Baghdad, every time they raise their satanic heads bomb the crap out of them. Of course, we will not get that kind of initiative out of Our Dear Leader and his Code Pink Generals.

Where are they selling this oil? Disrupt it. Pipelines have valves on them, take ‘em out....literally. One well placed pack of C4 should do it. Oil does not flow so good on the ground and you can’t sell it if it goes back in the sand.

Terminals, one well placed MOAB with a kiss my a$$ sign on it for the hell of it. Bye bye transport station.

You are thinking reactive instead of proactive. Oh, they are going to get rich and come get me heaven forbid. Don’t let that happen, f$%k ‘em up.

Problem is the Code Pink Administration does not want to win against it’s brothers in arms. I say f##$k ‘em up.

[what's up]

"Whatever" was intended to communicate that its inconsequential that these people were "bleeding hearts" as the other poster said. Action needs to be taken against murderous thugs who are gaining power.

Don't know why you think I prefer "reaction" rather than "proactive". I believe we DO need to be on offense and I also believe the only way to do that is to have another "surge" in US troops.