October 22, 2021

Obama’s Iraq: Anti-War President to Send 1,500 More Troops to Iraq

 President Barack Obama promised his war against ISIS would not include a ground war.  He promised the American people there would be no boots on the ground, and that this new war against an Islamic terrorist group that is not Islamic would not be anything like Bush’s evil war in Iraq.  And now, the decision has been made; 1,500 more troops are going to Iraq, more than doubling the number of American personnel on the ground in this new war that isn’t a war.

This article is not about whether or not sending those new troops is a good decision.  If they were sent in a capacity where they could operate in a manner necessary to reach a clearly defined goal, with a lift on the restrictions democrats have placed on our troops in regards to the rules of engagement, I could see myself supporting the President’s decision.  But the Commander in Chief authorizing sending 1,500 more troops is not about the war with the Islamic State as much as it is about how the anti-war president who got elected on the premise of pulling us out of Iraq, and the guy who received a Nobel Peace Prize for anti-war actions he had not even committed yet was granted the award, is waging war in Iraq, and he is expanding the campaign in a manner which he promised he would not do, but is trying to do it in such a way that it looks like he is not waging war.

The punchline is that these troops, we are told, are being sent as advisers.  That, you see, is Barack Obama’s way of getting around the “no boots on the ground” promise, because their presence is not as an occupation force willing to fight with their evil guns.  Why, that would be downright Bush-like, and we just can’t have anything like that.  No, the American troops are not there to fight.  They are there just to train and equip our poor friends in the Iraqi army to help them protect themselves from being overrun by the Islamic State.

So, what will happen when ISIS confronts the American Personnel head on?  Have our brave military personnel being sent to Iraq been ordered to do nothing, and just take a bullet like the dead Americans in Benghazi?  Will the President then go golfing as his team watches the slaughter of Americans from a war room in Washington as they did in Benghazi?

The press calls the troops Obama is sending in this latest surge “non-combatant troops.”  Have you ever seen non-combatant troops before?

The funding that goes along with this surge of non-fighting American personnel that aren’t actually boots on the ground carries with it a price tag of $5.6 billion, an increase in the spending for a military that Obama has been gutting so that Obama can not look like he’s doing nothing in the face of a rising tide of jihad that is overtaking the land our troops spilled their blood for before Obama abruptly retreated from Iraq, leaving the Iraqis defenseless, with all of our loot on the ground for ISIS to pick through as they need it.

The press calls the troops Obama is sending in this latest surge “non-combatant troops.”  Have you ever seen non-combatant troops before?  Well, I mean, aside from the National Guard the Democrats sent to the Mexican border at one point under orders of not engaging.

When asked if this is Obama’s way of a “mission creep” where he is slowly pulling us back into a War in Iraq that is like the one the evil George W. Bush had us in, Obama’s officials denied such a thing, promising this is only to train our poor allies in the region.

But, Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said we must understand, even though the troops are being sent to help, organize, equip, and train the poor Iraqi Muslims to fight their own battle, American troops may still face risks.

Ya think?

“We already had a couple of military deaths associated with this conflict … Nothing we do is without risk,” he said.

This is all about “advise and assist,” we are told.  A peaceful way to fight a war without fighting it.  It is a way to have boots on the ground without having boots on the ground, because they are not there to fight, but to advise and assist.

The American troops that are not allowed to fight because they are not technically boots on the ground will be sent to places like the western Anbar province, bordering Syria, where Islamic State fighters are on the offensive.  Iraq’s troops have been hit hard in these areas, losing at least 6,000 soldiers to death, and double that number to desertion.  But we are assured the Americans are not there to fight, and the deaths of American personnel will be kept at a minimum because the enemy will somehow understand that the American troops are not there to fight against ISIS.  They are there just to advise and assist.

Obama plans to win this war against ISIS with limited air strikes that do nothing to stop the advancement of ISIS, and the deployment of troops that aren’t there to fight on the front lines, or defend themselves in any manner that might make it look like they might be boots on the ground.

And then we wonder why Islamic leaders are laughing at the President, and why Vladimir Putin saw no problem with rolling his own forces into Ukraine without any concern over whether or not it might elicit an American response.

For some reason I am picturing in my mind Barack Obama beating Putin on the chest with his fists screaming, “You brute, you brute, you brute, you vicious brute!”

I suppose you have to be a Blazing Saddles fan to appreciate that.

Obama’s war in Iraq has become a pointless war with an aimless goal that lacks both clarity, and conviction. . . because Obama is trying to make it look like he is doing something, while remaining the anti-war President that would never follow in the footsteps of the war-mongering President that resided in the White House before him.

In the end, the death toll will be much greater because of Obama’s desire to protect his agenda is more important to him than to engage in a necessary manner in order to stop the advancing hordes of Islamic State terrorists.