That Short-Term, Narrowly Tailored Mission in Iraq Is Going to Last a Long Time, and Maybe Involve Ground Troops

When President Obama announced last week
that he had authorized “limited airstrikes” in Iraq, he went out of
his way to try to reassure those who were worried that the missiong
would eventually lead to a lengthy, indefinite engagement and
American troops once again fighting a ground war: 

I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American
military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I
understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in
Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As
Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be
dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we
support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American
combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because
there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in
Iraq. 

In summary, the mission would be short-term, and narrowly
targeted. The airstrikes had been authorized, but hadn’t even
happened. Maybe they wouldn’t even be necessary. 

To almost everyone’s genuine puzzlement and surprise, however,
it’s not working out quite that way. Airstrikes
began less than a day after they were authorized.

Less than a week has passed since the initial announcement, and
it has already been updated and clarified. The mission’s limits now
seem less limiting. “I don’t think we’re going to solve this
problem in weeks,” Obama
said on Sunday. “This is going to be a long-term project.”

And now it looks like it’s going to be a long-term project that
may involve ground troops.
Via The New York Times:

A senior White House official said on Wednesday that the United
States would consider using American ground troops to assist Iraqis
in rescuing Yazidi refugees if recommended by military advisers
assessing the situation.

Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, told
reporters on Martha’s Vineyard that President Obama would probably
receive recommendations in the next several days about how to mount
a rescue operation to help the refugees, who are stranded on a
mountaintop surrounded by Sunni militants. He said those
recommendations could include the use of American ground
troops.

The gimmick here is that these ground troops, should they be
deployed, would not be in a “combat role.” They’ll just be
there…to not engage in combat, or something. 

“What he’s ruled out is reintroducing U.S. forces into combat on
the ground in Iraq,” Mr. Rhodes said. He added, using an
alternative name for the militant group, that the deployment of
ground troops to assist a rescue was “different than reintroducing
U.S. forces in a combat role to take the fight to ISIL.”

He acknowledged that any ground troops in Iraq would face
dangers, even if they were there to help the refugees find a safe
way off the mountain. He said that like American forces anywhere,
the troops would have the ability to defend themselves if they came
under fire.

So to clarify: American troops won’t be in Iraq in a combat
role. They just might happen to engage in combat, if circumstances
require. 

This is all very reassuring.