First, Barack Obama sent three hundred to Iraq to protect embassy personnel. I really don’t blame him. Benghazi probably made him skittish. Then, even after we were assured that he wasn’t “contemplating” ground troops, he dispatched another 300 to help the Iraqis.
So now he’s sending 200 more. Note the doublespeak, via Newser.com:
Obama notified House and Senate leaders in a letter today. Obama says the additions include security forces, rotary-wing aircraft, and support for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.
Obama has ruled out sending combat troops back into Iraq. But he says the additional troops will be equipped for combat. He says their purpose is to protect US citizens and property if needed. Obama says the troops will stay in Iraq until security improves so that the reinforcements are no longer needed.
So no combat troops but these troops are equipped for combat—which is an entirely different thing, not a contradiction of what we were just told in the previous sentence. And “their purpose is to protect US citizens and property if needed” but “intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance” sounds like they are directly helping with the ground war.
When exactly does the President think reinforcements will be “no longer needed”? A much more likely development is that each fresh set of reinforcements will require another set to protect the ones who were sent before. Sending a few hundred soldiers ever two weeks or so will soon begin to add up.
And it has already begun:
According to CNN, there are a hundred “in the area” who are also moving into Iraq.
This is how wars begin. This is how we “find ourselves” entangled in a battle zone.
Don’t refuse to learn the lesson of history. We broke Iraq and doomed it to this Sunni/Shiite war when we invaded the first time. We will only break it worse if we get involved again.
There is no excuse for sacrificing American blood for a lost cause that has nothing to do with our national interest.