No Script

Please Wait...

Al-Ahed Telegram

CIP Director to Huffington Post: We Already Have ’Boots on Ground’ in Iraq

CIP Director to Huffington Post: We Already Have ’Boots on Ground’ in Iraq
folder_openAmericas... access_time9 years ago
starAdd to favorites

Local Editor

Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, William D. Hartung, criticized on Thursday US President Barack Obama's policy of "no boots on the ground in Iraq" by referring to one of cartoonist Gary Varvel's images, adding that, "The Obama administration's "military action" or "military engagement" in Iraq and Syria is just war by another name."

CIP Director to Huffington Post: We Already Have ’Boots on Ground’ in Iraq

In a
Huffington Post blog posted by Hartung on Thursday, he wrote that in Obama's last September 11 speech on expanding US military intervention in Iraq and Syria, Obama continued the theme that he will not authorize "another ground war in Iraq," or the policy known as no "boots on the ground," as it has been described in other contexts.

Yet, there are already boots on the ground in Iraq, Hartung wrote, adding, "roughly 1,600 after the additional 475 troops the president announced recently on Wednesday."

"Carrying out the president's new strategy of "destroying" [so-called "Daesh"] ISIL could mean thousands more," Hartung said.

Referring to cartoonist Gary Varvel of the Indianapolis Star newspaper, Hartung said he "captured the absurdity of the administration's rhetoric best when he depicted two US soldiers swapping their boots for golf shoes to adhere to the president's "no boots on the ground" policy."

"Words matter when it comes to issues of war and peace. The war in Vietnam was not a "police action," and the invasion of Cambodia was not an "incursion," as the administrations of that era often claimed. And the Obama administration's "military action" or "military engagement" in Iraq and Syria is just war by another name," Hartung wrote in his blog.

He added: "The mantra of "no boots on the ground" is a political marketing technique designed to mobilize a war-weary American public after over a decade of costly and disastrous fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Hartung said that, "It's worth looking back at the administration's ever expanding rationales for being in Iraq. A brief timeline is in order," as Hartung wrote:

In June, there were over 500 troops sent to Iraq to either protect the embassy in Baghdad or begin training and providing intelligence for Iraqi forces.

In August, the bombing began, but allegedly only to protect US personnel in Iraq and stave off a humanitarian disaster. Additional troops were sent to assess the scope of the mission to break the ISIL blockade of Mt. Sinjar and free members of the Izadi minority trapped there.

A few days later, air strikes were expanded to support Kurdish and Iraqi forces seeking to wrest control of a dam in Mosul from ISIL. Along the way the US and its allies began arming Kurdish forces to slow down the advance of ISIL while buying time to arm Kurdish forces.

Now the administration has pledged to "degrade and destroy" ISIL, in part by arming the "moderate" Syrian opposition forces and bombing ISIL sites within Syria, and in part by increasing arms and training for the Iraqi military.

Hartung continued by saying, "As Obama acknowledged last night [on September 11], the new, expanded US intervention in Iraq will result in the deployment of more troops, to serve as spotters for air strikes, to train and advise Iraqi forces, and to gather intelligence on ISIL movements."
He added that, "All of these activities will almost certainly result in increasing US troop levels in Iraq beyond the 1,600 now authorized."

"It's unlikely that this intervention will ever look like George W. Bush's war in Iraq, which peaked at over 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors."

"However, if the mission is truly an open-ended effort to "degrade and destroy" Daesh," Hartung further wrote, "it is virtually inevitable that more US troops will be sent to Iraq, and that some of them will take on combat roles."

Hartung said that due to all this, "This is the moment when public opinion and citizen action are critical. A significant majority of Americans now support air strikes in Iraq, but nearly two-thirds oppose sending ground troops."

"Acquiescing in the current escalation of the war is likely to lead to the exact situation that nearly two-thirds of the public opposes -- a ground war in Iraq. The time to make that connection and speak out against the rapidly escalating war in Iraq and Syria is now," he wrote.

"Contrary to the discussion on Capitol Hill and in much of the media, there are alternatives to widening the war in Iraq and Syria," he stated.

Hartung, in reference to an article in today's New York Times, said it has noted the following: "Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIL has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians." As a result, "There has been little substantive debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East."

Meanwhile, Hartung provided in his blogs names of some organizations that have put forward alternative proposals for dealing with the Daesh threat.

For instance, Hartung said the plan by the Win Without War's organization focuses on cutting off Daesh funding sources, stemming the flow of arms and fighters into the region, addressing the underlying political grievances that have led some forces to form a tactical alliance with Daesh, providing adequate humanitarian aid to refugees from the wars in Syria and Iraq, and crafting a truly international solution.


Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

Comments