The U.S. is sending another 300 troops to Iraq to beef up security at the U.S. Embassy and elsewhere in the Baghdad area to protect U.S. citizens and property, officials said Monday.
That raises the total U.S. troop presence in Iraq to approximately 750, the Pentagon said.Link
I'm fully behind sending in the FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] and the CRE [Contingency Response Element]...this is exactly what we have stood the units up for. But we've already exceeded that mission. Now, when the first attack comes against these guys, either at static sites or in transit, we'll have justification to further expand the footprint and the scope.
This is how it begins. Again.
What a horrible situation.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Troops specifically protecting an embassy...NP. That is US territory. But sending them elsewhere in Iraq? Well, so much for Obama's own "mission accomplished" moments.
ReplyDeleteTroops that can be shot at but not shoot back. Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteDon't be goofy. They can shoot back just fine. This stupid nonsense from you General Rippers out there about how the huggy liberals are imposing cuddliness on the troops is just a projection of your own insecurities. Besides there have ALWAYS been codes for the behavior of troops abroad dating back long long before anyone ever used the term America. And acting like a violent douchebag has long been recognized as lowly and coarse. You cons, when you put those crooked imbeciles in the White House last time, wrecked our reputation abroad. YOU made America look backwards and stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself. Whatever you guys say to do, we should always do the opposite.
DeleteJMJ
Jersey's insulting hyperbole aside [seriously, why?], the ROE for the forces heading into Baghdad, as in other locations....is that they can most certainly return fire if fired upon.
DeleteI'm just always bothered by these cartoony depictions of serious international matters.
DeleteJMJ
As Obama made the US even more unpopular than under Bush, by your logic we should do the opposite of what you want.
ReplyDeleteAnd now Obama's failed presidency is as unpopular as Bush's was at its lowest, domestically.... with 2 more years of scandal and misleading still left.
dmarks, you're another one of those cartoony cons.
DeleteJMJ
That's a weak insult, Jersey. Even for you. And you ignored the objective facts about how Obama is measurably worse than Bush in the "reputation" matters you attacked Bush for.
DeleteYou need to read more news and less cartoons..n
From USA Today...
ReplyDelete"confidence in Obama in Muslim countries dropped from 33% to 24% in his first term. Approval of Obama's policies declined even further, from 34% to 15%. And support for the United States in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan is lower today than it was in 2008 in the closing year of George W. Bush's administration. That collapse of support has not happened elsewhere." ...from a Pew study quoted in the article.
Yes, Jersey... You [libs], when you put those crooked imbeciles in the White House last time, wrecked our reputation abroad. YOU made America look backwards and stupid. You should be ashamed of yourself. Whatever you guys say to do, we should always do the opposite.
Kennedy stated off with 600 "advisers" in Vietnam and by the time of his murder it had grown to 16,000. Yeah, you had better believe that this looks familiar.
ReplyDeleteThough there are some similarities, I would refer you to a good column by Paul Pillar:
DeleteWhy the Iraq War Really Was Different From the Vietnam War
"Looking back on the mistakes involved in Vietnam War became a national exercise in painful retrospection. It included soul-searching by some of those most directly involved in launching the U.S. expedition; some of the most candid and insightful came from former secretary of defense Robert McNamara. The difference with the post-war posture of the people who brought us the Iraq War has been stark. Despite the much narrower original responsibility for that war, mea culpas from those who promoted it have been hard to find. The promoters have instead tried to find creative ways to blame the damage they caused on those who later had to clean it up."
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/why-the-iraq-war-really-was-different-the-vietnam-war-10811
Hard to be "creative" in blaming Obama for a large part of what is going on there now.... after all, he has been in charge of it for years now.
DeleteAnd on top of that, he told us it was cleaned up.
If that were the case, the pols and pundits on the right wouldn't need to lie about the withdrawal of forces in 2011.
Delete