Juan Cole: When will US admit Boots on Ground in Iraq (3000 Troops)?

[marmar]

By Juan Cole

President Obama’s announcement that he will send 1500 more troops to Iraq was made on a Friday, a day usually reserved in Washington for the release of bad or embarrassing news that officials hope won’t still be fresh enough for Monday’s newspapers and so will quietly sink.

That these troops will be sent with Iraqi soldiers to al-Anbar Province belies the administration’s repeated denial that it will put boots on the ground. There will soon be 3000 US troops in Iraq. They will be at the scene of battles, embedded with Iraqi units (apparently in the hope that the Iraqi troops will be too embarrassed to run away en masse again in front of foreign guests).

The growing size of the US contingent is not the only news. The US is reestablishing a “command” in Iraq, which administration officials view as necessary to rebuild, or more frankly to build, an Iraqi army. Former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki (in office 2006-2014) appears to have installed so many corrupt and incompetent officers, on the grounds they were loyal to him, that the institution may as well not exist. Half of enlisted men are said to be ghosts, who don’t show up to their postings because they can bribe their commanding officer into letting them be absent.

If there are US troops on the front lines in al-Anbar, where ISIL has been expanding its reach in recent months, then unfortunately there are likely to be US casualties. These are boots on the ground, even if there are not combat platoons going into battle by themselves. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.juancole.com/2014/11/boots-ground-troops.html

[hobbit709]

1. Maybe once the body bags start coming home.

Remember just a few short months ago it was only 600?
I said it then and I'll say it again now. "Where have we heard all this before?"

[JoePhilly]

2. Artciles like this make liberals sound stupid.

Look, when Obama took office, we had about 150,000 troops in Iraq, with most of them in active combat roles.

Now, we have 3000, none of which are in active combat roles, and Cole is going to try and suggest that its all the same.

If the left is ever going to have any credibility on the appropriate use of the US military, folks like Cole have to be able to distinguish the very real differences in the two situations.

When liberals like Cole fail to do this, he is just as bad as the right wingers who think a full scale US military invasion is the only answer to every problem that comes along.

[marmar]

3. Historical amnesia makes us look bad.

[JoePhilly]

4. What are we supposed to be remembering?

How many times have folks on DU breathlessly predicted Obama was about to send ground troops to invade a ME country. Five, six?

Or do we have "amnesia" about those failed predictions?