Noah Rothman:
It is becoming increasingly clear that almost no one in the press believes that the nearly 1,700 American service men and women currently in Iraq (a number even The New York Timesbelieves will balloon in short order) will not encounter armed resistance.
On Thursday, when White House Press Sec. Josh Earnest was asked how Americans who are asked to serve in what Gen. Martin Dempsey called a “combat advisory role” alongside indigenous forces would react if they were fired upon, Earnest replied with the obvious (via The Washington Times):
President Obama expects U.S. troops to return fire if Islamic State militants shoot at them, the White House said Thursday, as new questions surfaced about the president’s direct role in dictating the rules of engagement in the war in Iraq and Syria.
“Iraq is a very dangerous place, and U.S. military personnel will have the equipment to defend themselves,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said. “Certainly the commander in chief would expect that the American troops do what is necessary to defend themselves.”
So, it’s not “combat,” per se. If, however, U.S. troops are sent to the front – which they likely will be – and are shot at, they will return fire with the aim of neutralizing the threat. Just don’t call that a combat mission in Iraq. That would run afoul of the White House’s political commitment to the narrative that Barack Obama ended the Iraq War.
These word games, of course, only apply to uniformed American service personnel. Reports indicate that the Pentagon and the CIA are relying on covert operators to execute missions that U.S. troops cannot carry out (via Time Magazine):
So, there’s more reason to worry about Obama’s idea of what and when combat is justified than about any status of forces agreement by the Iraqi government.
Let you saving your own life interfere with a Dem’s election this Nov. and you’ll pay worse than the 91 lashes each of those poor 9 Iranians got for lip-synching and dancing to Happy.
Uh,huh. So what’s the plan if they use bombs, machetes, missiles, tanks, clubs…
White House: It’s not combat, but US troops will return fire if they’re shot at…
I was sure that was a quote from the LBJ White House
It’s sad when our President uses War for political purposes. His parsed words say it all. He uses US Boots on the Ground which will morph in to combat boots or combat ground forces in actual combat. It reminds me of when he lied to America to get elected when he said if you like your doctor and/or health insurance you can keep them “period”!! Well “period” changed to reflect some morphed idea of health plan. Like the meaning of Is with Slick and his lies. The talking points that Kerry and Hagel have applied to War leave enough variation to also cover the political lie of NO US Boots on the Ground!! Bottom line there is NO real viable strategy defined, there is NO coalition (especially from the Muslim neighbors), and tell me how 5,000 Free Syrian Army troops can just pick up and leave to go to Saudi to be trained. What will ISIS look like if they have 40,000 troops now and what will they look like after 6-12 months when this supposed Army is supposed to be trained?? What happens in Syria with these troops out of the country?? All Obama did was kick the can down the road to avoid any change in the 2014 election strategy. He has lied to America again, how stupid can we be??
The Bamster sent twice as many troops to fight the ebolas. If any troops are captured they are boiled in huge stewing pots.
The sad part is a lot of the time they need permission to return fire – and by the time that goes through the chain the men and women have taken casualties.