‘The US military’s involvement is not over’ in Iraq, Says Secretary of Defense

“The U.S. military’s
involvement is not over. President Obama has been very clear on
this point,” Secretary of Defense Chuck
told a press conference yesterday. “Our objectives remain clear
and limited—to protect American citizens and facilities, to provide
assistance to Iraqi forces as they confront ISIL, and to join with
international partners to address the humanitarian crisis.”

His comments came during a little confab meant to tout U.S.
accomplishments in Iraq against ISIL, especially after the Islamic
militant organization doubled down on atrocities against the local
population with the murder of American journalist
James Foley. Hagel and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General Martin E. Dempsey talked up successes, but warned that ISIL
is very bad indeed (not a point that’s really in question). And
they said there’s a bigger U.S. role to come.

So…What kind of military involvement are we talking about?

“The defeat of ISIL is not only going to come at the hands of
airstrikes,” Hagel insisted later in response to a question about
long-term strategy. He added, “strategically, there are limits to
how much you can accomplish with airstrikes.”

That makes a certain sense. Dropping bombs and shooting missiles
may blow the hell out of targets, but it doesn’t take territory or
fortify strongholds. If you plan the “defeat of ISIL” you need
somebody on the ground to dig in, shoot, and get shot at. That is,
you need to send in troops.

If those are American troops, this slightly contradicts the
president’s comments of August 14, when he
insisted “we can carry out effective missions like the one we
carried out on Mount Sinjar without committing combat troops on the
ground.”

But then, nobody really thought the next U.S.
government-sponsored tour of this particular garden spot would be
confined to a view from the air, did they?

But will they be American troops? Said General
Dempsey:

when you ask me if the American people should steel themselves
for this long conflict, there will—there will be required
participation in the—of the United States of America, and
particularly in a leadership role, to build coalitions, to provide
the unique capabilities that we provide, but not necessarily all
the capabilities, to work through this thing using three different
military tools.

One is direct action. There will be cases where we are
personally threatened, U.S. persons and facilities are threatened,
that we will use direct action. If told to use direct action for
other purposes, we’ll be prepared to do so. Haven’t been asked.

The second one is building partner capacity. And that’s—that’s
really where this has to reside. We’ve got to have them take
ownership of this, because, frankly, if we own it, they’re not
going to be that interested in it.

And then the last one, of course, is enabling, which is to say
enabling our partners, which is what you see us doing somewhat now
in Iraq with both the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga, and
I think you’ll see that enabling function used, as well.

My guess is that we’re being softened up for round three in
Iraq.