| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| WH deputy national security adviser: US roles "could result in military engagements" |
| 2014-07-03 |
| President Obama promises that the U.S. troops he's sending to Iraq won't get into another shooting war, but a top White House adviser has listed several scenarios that would prompt direct military action against Islamic militants. Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to the president, said the U.S. "has a role to play in a number of different ways" that could result in military engagements in Iraq. The government in Baghdad is fighting militants loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and Mr. Obama has sent nearly 500 U.S. troops to protect the U.S. embassy and the airport in Baghdad, and to serve as military advisers. "I think the threats that we would look to, for instance, would include an evaluation of whether ISIL is posing a threat to U.S. interests that would necessitate our taking action against them, as we have against terrorist organizations in other parts of the region," Mr. Rhodes said. "I think the security and safety of our personnel would certainly be of profound interest to the United States." In addition to those two possibilities for military action, Mr. Rhodes told foreign journalists Tuesday that the Obama administration would consider engaging ISIL forces if the U.S. believes it can make "a positive difference." "We have left that door open if we believe it can make a difference, a positive difference, or if we believe that it is in our core interest to do so because we face a counterterrorism threat or a threat to our personnel," Mr. Rhodes said. "And I'd add keeping that Embassy open and keeping our operations running in Iraq is what facilitates our ability to cooperate with the Iraqi Government and provide them with security assistance and political support." Mr. Rhodes said the president "has been very clear that there's not a U.S. military solution that can be imposed on the current dynamic in Iraq." "Our assessment teams are on the ground," he said. "Our joint operation centers that we are establishing with the Iraqis will help support their efforts to coordinate operations against ISIL as well. But those are Iraqi operations, ultimately." |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #13 s/ áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅä/ÇáÅÚáÇä/, sorry |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-07-03 20:42 |
| #12 Phlouper, if Fred would justÇáÅÚáÇä ÇáÚÇáãì áÍÞæÞ ÇáÅäÓÇäould solve the problem. Thanks. |
| Posted by: KBK 2014-07-03 20:39 |
| #11 For JohnQC: It means that somewhere within the byte stream of this particular message, at a position that should be the first byte of an encoded character, the UTF-8 decoder encountered a 0x92 byte. In the Windows-1252 (or cp1252) character encoding, the default character encoding of Windows systems in the US, byte value 0x92 corresponds to U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK. |
| Posted by: Pholuper Dribble8982 2014-07-03 19:39 |
| #10 Considering that this is the same Ben Rhodes who was involved with the "Benghazi video excuse," is that a big surprise? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2014-07-03 15:45 |
| #9 Yep we'll be in a shooting war in Iraq and the media will not say a word, the Obamaistas will not let the media in theater to report and we'll have a lot of "training accidents coming home to closed casket funerals...It will make all of our clandestine operations back in the 70s look like they were on national tv in comparison. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-07-03 13:39 |
| #8 Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to the president, said the US. "has a role to play in a number of different ways" that could result in military engagements in Iraq.. Yes, vectoring Russian fighter pilots from kill box engagement to kill box engagement, and providing accurate BDA could be characterized as "playing a role." |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-07-03 10:14 |
| #7 Matt, they probably have to tie multiple fatalities before returning fire. And even then, they are supposed to call WH to ask permission. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2014-07-03 10:09 |
| #6 Wouldn't that be 'kinetic contact' in |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-07-03 09:38 |
| #5 I wouldn't want to be in a squeeze play between Shi'ites and Sunnis. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-07-03 09:02 |
| #4 I'd like to see the rules of engagement these poor bastards are operating under. |
| Posted by: Matt 2014-07-03 08:50 |
| #3 Getting "ERROR: invalid byte sequence for encoding "UTF8": 0x92" |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-07-03 08:33 |
| #2 IIUC, IOW the Bammer is still adhering to his minimalist approach, + putting conditions or restrictions on any direct US military intervention on behalf of overseas US Allies, effec "leaving the battlefield" to be mainly fought over by US Allies themselves agz invading third-party protagonists + expansion-happy OWG Globalist Co-Superpowers. Iff one is hoping to change the future by preventing Washington from geopol retreating across the World back towards CONUS-NORAM = EASTPAC, Hawaii + US West Coast; + preventing same from destroying Guam + other Pacific islands via "Earthquake/Tectonic Bombs" as part of anti-China, anti-Nuclear Islam "strategic/theater denial" [A2/AREA-DENIAL], LOOKS LIKE ITS GOING TO BE A LONG L-O-N-G LLLOOOOONNNNNGGGGG HARD STRUGGLE. Have I said "long"??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2014-07-03 00:30 |
| #1 either that or retreat like France. |
| Posted by: newc 2014-07-03 00:17 |