It was only yesterday that I quoted Nancy Pelosi insisting that she hoped President Barack Obama would not send any ground troops to Iraq but, if he decided to do so, he didn’t need any permission from Congress because Congress had abdicated conferred unending power to commit any kind of aggression in Iraq back in 2001 and 2002.
It was only a week ago that I pointed out that, even though the media claimed that our White House rulers “are not contemplating ground troops,” the President actually claimed, “I don’t rule out anything.”
So, for once, the President was more truthful than others in his administration.
They aren’t just contemplating ground troops. They are sending them.
President Obama announced today his intention to send 300 US special forces troops to Iraq as “advisers” to the Iraqi military. The deployment is above and beyond the nearly 300 US Marines also sent to the US Embassy in Baghdad.
So they are going to have their hands full “advising” the Iraqi government. Happily, all they have to do is help the government repulse the terrorists…
…and bring about a new government in Bagdad?
US officials say that they have been urging the other parties in Iraq to form a new coalition government without Maliki, and that they believe Maliki would not be able to bring Sunnis into his coalition to fight ISIS.
Diplomats say that the call is also coming at the behest of key Sunni allies like Saudi Arabia, who don’t like Maliki and have been offering to help “stabilize” Iraq if the US gets him ousted.
Maliki has been centralizing power in his own hands for years, and has blamed the Saudis for the ISIS takeover of the west, dubbing it “genocide” on their part. He has given some lip-service to bringing Sunnis and Kurds into positions of power, but has so far not actually done anything.
First of all, Maliki’s perception that the Saudis are behind ISIS is not unreasonable. The Saudis have been supporting radical islamists in Syria… who are part of the membership of ISIS.
Secondly, while I despise Maliki, it is hardly obvious that a Shiite could gain power in Iraq without making promises to Shiite supporters that would hinder him from giving power to Sunnis and Kurds. The only ruler in Iraq to hold the system together was a man who was Sunni but who enforced a secular government and shared power (as much as a strong man can share power) with Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and even Kurds sometimes. But we decided we had to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
I’m open to evidence but simply blaming Maliki for what might be an impossible task seems unwarranted at this point.
Whether or not that is the case, is trying to force Iraq to change leadership going to help those ground troops succeed? How is that kind of intervention working out with Bashar al Assad in Syria?
Sending ground troops to Iraq, even as few as three hundred, is dangerous to them and risks leading us into another quagmire: Iraq War II (or III if you want to count Desert Storm).
The President needs to be stopped. Congress needs to grow a backbone and show they care about all those troops before we have a new wave of wounded soldiers being abused by VA hospitals—plus the ones that will be killed overseas.