HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Troops to Iraq to protect...

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:13 AM

 

Troops to Iraq to protect the diplomats and other American embassy personnel is a reasonable move

. . . with all of the pressure to attack something in Iraq and all of the squawk about the response to the threat to the U.S. embassy in Libya, it's understandable and reasonable that the President augmented the State Dept.'s private security forces with a contingent of U.S. troops.

I don't think this is a backdoor to some kind of troop buildup for any on-the-ground combat operation. I do think that trying to secure those embassy folks in the middle of the ongoing conflict there could put those forces at risk. I'm not sure they can just hunker down and maintain their presence there. Using those forces to transport all of them out would seem like the responsible thing to do at this point, military action, or not. Maybe that's the plan.

It's not as if U.S. forces are prepared or likely to play a long-term role in any effort to defend Iraqi territory. Defending that embassy indefinitely seems a waste of resources and an unacceptable risk until the security situation is more certain. Without an operative political and security strategy from Iraqis, risking troops to hold down that building is a losing proposition, whether military force is employed or not.

Close it and bring the Americans home.



Washington Post ‏@washingtonpost 49m
U.S. airstrikes in Iraq would be risky, retired military officers say http://wapo.st/1pCMWzn

5 replies, 1115 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Troops to Iraq to protect the diplomats and other American embassy personnel is a reasonable move (Original post)
bigtree Jun 2014 OP
Hekate Jun 2014 #1
Cha Jun 2014 #2
mwrguy Jun 2014 #3
Quackers Jun 2014 #4
bigtree Jun 2014 #5

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:22 AM

1. That's pretty much how I figured it, too, bigtree

What do people think we're supposed to do with the personnel at the embassy? Just abandon them to their fate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:28 AM

2. Yes, it is quite "reasonable" especially when you consider

the alternative. Something unheard of that the O Admn would never do.. Turning their backs on those left behind in Iraq.

mahalo bigtree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 03:46 AM

3. Obama knows what he's doing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 04:50 AM

4. Something that has me worried, and perhaps you could ease my mind, but

Why did the White House notify Congress? Notifying Congress is required under the War Powers Act if deploying troops, but not for sending troops to our own embassy. I'm not sure I understand why this was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quackers (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:38 AM

5. apparently they thought the notice was necessary to move troops into Iraq

 

. . . I don't know the exact precedent or provision that told them it was required. Here's the letter to Congress:



http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5815968/american-troops-are-going-back-to-iraq

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread