Posted on 10/27/2015 2:21:31 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
They already have engaged them, of course, per the otherwise successful raid to liberate an ISIS prison in Iraq last week that ended with one American soldier being killed. That sounds suspiciously like combat, and if there’s one thing Barack Obama stands for, it’s that the era of combat in Iraq is over.
How can combat not be combat? Easy. Just call it something else. It wouldn’t be the first Orwellian euphemism this White House has used to reassure progressives that they may be at war but they’re not at war-war.
Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook had been blunter on Thursday: “Our mission in Iraq is the train, advise and assist mission. This was a unique circumstance. … This was a support mission in which they were providing support to the Kurdistan Regional Government. U.S. forces are not in an active combat mission in Iraq.”
But before Carter left the podium on Friday, he offered this explanation for why he couldn’t reveal more details of Wheeler’s actions: “This is combat. Things are complicated.”
Indeed.
The rules of the official advise-and-assist mission meant the Americans were to “stay behind the last covered and concealed position,” but when the fighters they were supporting began taking fire and casualties, they stepped in and acted. As Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren noted from Baghdad, “In the chaos of combat, when you see your friends being hit, I would submit to you that you’re under somewhat of a moral obligation.” Again, combat.
“Combat,” in theory, refers to engagement with the enemy in the course of an indefinite foreign occupation involving many thousands of troops. Barack Obama certainly doesn’t support that, except in Afghanistan, where he only kind of supports it and only because his haste in ending combat in Iraq has turned out to be a catastrophe. What the U.S. did last week in that ISIS prison, as Carter explains below, was a “raid.” A raid is a time-limited pinprick strike involving a few dozen soldiers with a very specific purpose. We won’t engage ISIS in “combat” but we’ll “raid” the sh*t out of them. Just like we wouldn’t “bomb” Libya, we’d participate in “kinetic military action” there. Just like Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which the White House didn’t want to respond to, wasn’t an “invasion” but an “uncontested arrival.” Just like the attack on the consulate in Benghazi wasn’t terrorism, it was a “spontaneous protest” by a mob incensed at a YouTube video critical of Islam.
Carter can put as much perfume on his BS as he likes but what he’s telling Congress, and you, here is to prepare yourselves for more American casualties in Iraq as U.S. special forces wade more deeply into the fight. And of course, the task of announcing this falls to him, not to the commander-in-chief, because Obama doesn’t want to have to symbolically face his base after promising them the Iraq mess is in America’s rearview mirror. The question to ask yourself is: Why now? Why, after umpteen thousand ISIS atrocities, has the White House decided to risk the lives of America’s most elite troops for operations like freeing prisoners in Iraq? The obvious answer, I think, is that it’s a small bit of muscle-flexing in response to Russia’s much more significant incursion across the border in Syria. Our Middle Eastern Sunni “allies” can’t help but notice lately that, when you’re in a pinch, it may be more useful to have Vladimir Putin as a friend than Barack Obama. So here’s Obama making a show of helping the Iraqi government in rescuing prisoners with American boots on the ground in support to demonstrate his own good faith. More of this to come, no doubt.
exactly.
This fairy has appointed so many homosexuals in the higher echelons of the Pentagon and the military that it would take a lot to remove all of this crap.
Bingo!!!!
it is a religious civil war
Sunni Islam vs Shiite Islam
In addition here are various religious sects within each of the 2 main religious factions.
In other words, nothing to do with us. We don’t have a ‘side’ in this war. Both sides, all sides are one version of ISLAM or the other. Only Muslims need to take a side here.
Shoot who?
Whose side are we on? Sunni or Shiite? Or one of the various smaller offshoot religious sects?
Exactly why the A-10s are on the ground. Can’t shoot the allies of the current administration.
“...Sec. of Defense who was never in the military.”
...and gay.
Well, in Obama’s administration, that’s a given.
I think Ashton took a crash course over a stutterers anonymous. His initial roll-out by 0bama was insanely embarrassing.
“Why do we care which side wins?”
Because of geopolitics. The Obama administration sees Russia as a prime strategic threat. Anything that diminishes Russia is good. Anything that enhances Russian influence is bad.
Same thing happened in Afghanistan. The Saudis, with US support, recruited, trained, armed Jihadists from all over the world to come and fight the USSR. So now we are supporting the Saudi proxies in Syria, to fight Russia’s ally Assad.
Will he give American troops ammo?
Awaiting another Benghazi.
This is why Hillary must not win the election. She’ll keep them all in place. Oh wait, she’ll keep EVERYTHING in place and will be 0dunga’s 3rd term, actually.
exactly.
I have no doubt that she has no love for the homosexual group, but will use them as support.
We need someone to turn all of this mental illness crap away and be done with.
So why do we want the Saudis to win?
Well wonderful...Now our sons and daughters will be able to fight against our own advanced equipment to see how effective it is...I wonder how many drones Obama gave them...
More non-combat combat.
Ping.
“So why do we want the Saudis to win?”
As a means of weakening Russia. For example, the Saudis and Qataris would like to build a pipeline through Syria, to Turkey and the Mediterranean, that will transport natural gas from the Gulf to Europe, much more easily and economically than the present means at their disposal. This would have the effect of undercutting Russian exports of natural gas to Europe, further undermining the Russian economy.
Assad, dependent as he is on Russian support, has nixed this pipeline project. So as far as the Saudis are concerned, Assad has to go. They want to install someone in power there who will be amenable to Saudi interests.
The Obama Administration naturally supports the Saudi project, because anything that further undermines the Russian economy is cool with them.
That is one reason the Administration wants the Saudis to win. Also, the Administration does not want Russia to extend its influence in the Middle East. The Saudis will kick the Russian henchman (Assad) out.
LBJ and Mac the Knife were lying bastards.
LBJ and Mac the Knife were lying bastards.
“LBJ and Mac the Knife were lying bastards.”
Yep.
5.56mm
We’re still at war in a war Obama said he ended after he pulled all the troops out and said he won’t have any “boots on the ground?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.