Apparently heavily armed Navy SEALs and Army Rangers will be magically non-combative once in Iraq, only doing defensive security, which if involving shooting, won’t be considered fighting. Such sleazy fabrications are what passes for accepted truth in DC. Fighting isn’t fighting if we say it isn’t. US involvement in Iraq will be minimal until it isn’t. Simply because the US completely screwed things up in Iraq before and may do the same thing again is no reason to assume the results will be the same.
The U.S. is urgently deploying several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq and considering sending an additional contingent of special forces soldiers as Baghdad struggles to repel a rampant insurgency, even as the White House insists anew that America will not be dragged into another war.
Wouldn’t a far better way to avoid another war be to not do anything in Iraq and let the people there fight it out.? Not getting involved there also reduces the chance of terrorist attacks here at home.
While Obama has vowed to keep U.S. forces out of combat in Iraq, he said in his notification to Congress that the personnel moving into the region are equipped for direct fighting.
You can’t keep combat troops out of Iraq by sending them in, This would seem to be obvious.
But sending Navy SEALs and Army Rangers into harm’s way could help ISIS draw the U.S. into a series of firefights to which Obama would likely have to respond with greater force.
The war pigs would very much like that. Greater force means greater profits for them.
Well, this seems somewhat over-reactive,
given that Obama is invoking the War Powers Act
and capped the troop number at 275.
The more important question seems to me:
are there enough helicopters for an Embassy evacuation
(think Viet-Nam circa 1975) ?
Unless the ISIS gang it totally manic, ideological, and suicidal
(always possible, of course)
Baghdad faces no real threat,
except from panic-mongering
and unleashed Shiite radicals.
We’ll see.