November 14, 2014 9:29 am -

No one believed the promise of no ground troops in Iraq. But Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey told Congress Thursday they are considering ground troops to fight ISIS militants.

In Washington, U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Thursday that the United States would consider dispatching a modest number of American forces to fight with Iraqi troops as they engage in more complex missions in the campaign against ISIS militants.

โ€œIโ€™m not predicting at this point that I would recommend that those forces in Mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by U.S. forces, but weโ€™re certainly considering it,โ€ Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee.[su_csky_ad]

D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

24 responses to Dempsey: We’re Considering Ground Troops

  1. Tommy6860 November 14th, 2014 at 9:35 am

    And here we go! Thanks Bush!

    But first, I think the president needs to address the nation on prime time TV, to insist congress vote on this and put their asses on the fire. When they defer back to him, he can let them all have it from the bully pulpit, while they have claimed he’s acting the dictator.

    • Spirit of America November 14th, 2014 at 10:17 am

      I read your post w/the same emotion as watching my mother-in-law accidentally driving over a cliff…. but it was in my brand new cadillac… ๐Ÿ™‚

      This has noting to do with bush, in the sense that if you’re going to go back in history, it is not fair to stop there. This is a much older and many-stepped process. If we go back into iraq(in a more large-scaled way, we’re already there as far as I’m concerned), it is because isis is there and came from syria, not iraq and there have been missteps w/syria as well.

      Now, before folks jump on Obama about this as well, there are no good choices because there is no solution. No matter what he does, one can legitimately criticize him, but one can legitimately praise as well. That’s sometimes the he|| of being pres, darned if he does, darned if he doesn’t.

      What tommy6860 wrote about congress voting, he’s dead on(that was the mother-in-law part)…
      The pentagon has several scenarios about securing the iraqi borders. They need to hold a joint hearing(congress& wh, in camera), discuss it, then put it to a full vote.

      Then execute it, 100%.

    • Allan Kim Harrison November 14th, 2014 at 10:18 am

      You mean like Bush did? You know the Democrats stood in line to vote for that war don’t you?

      • edmeyer_able November 14th, 2014 at 11:04 am

        Yes they did and they based their votes on the 131 lies that the former admin fed them. Remember those famous words if you don’t stand with our president don’t call yourself a patriot?

      • Tommy6860 November 14th, 2014 at 1:39 pm

        And the GOP had the majority and got voted on because, well. WAR. The GOP put all of the war funding on the national credit card too. Now that they complained through their media vehicle, Fox News, on how the president isn’t doing anything about ISIS, they sure avoid standing up to the so called dictator in chief when they are supposed to be calling the shots they so demand is their constitutional authority. When Obama asked to re-authorize, they defer it back to him. Their own politics sucks so bad they wear nose plugs to prevent themselves from smelling the shit they talk.

  2. mea_mark November 14th, 2014 at 9:36 am

    Sounds like it is time for Obama to go to congress and openly debate how deep into this conflict we want to get. Air strikes and support are one thing, troops getting involved anywhere near the front lines in ground combat is another.

    • Scopedog November 14th, 2014 at 10:33 am

      And you expect those GOP sh*tbags to give him anything? These fools who only see him as a, well, you know…?

      • mea_mark November 14th, 2014 at 1:46 pm

        I don’t expect anything but debate and really that is more important than what the idiot republican partisan hacks do. As long as the nation understands what is happening and why the republicans can do all the political masturbating they want.

  3. Suzanne McFly November 14th, 2014 at 9:39 am


  4. Maxx44 November 14th, 2014 at 9:46 am

    I’m shocked I tell ya, shocked!

  5. Budda November 14th, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Generals always want to fight wars…that’s their job description.

    • mea_mark November 14th, 2014 at 10:11 am

      I wouldn’t necessarily say ‘want’ but certainly plan for and view all options for war.

      • Budda November 14th, 2014 at 12:40 pm

        Perhaps “want” is too strong, however, peace time generals don’t get remembered/memorialized as much as war generals. Just like surgeons want to operate, generals want to fight. It’s what they do.

        • Spirit of America November 14th, 2014 at 1:38 pm

          While there may be some w/that inappropriate attitude, but an officers’ first duty lies w/the well-being of his troops, which putting in harms way due to a selfish reason would violate.

          Now, will they fight if ordered to? Sure, because like you said, it is what they do as well as it tests their skills and it does indeed let them practice those skills in real scenarios.
          Stars & Stripes did a poll a few years ago of 07’s and above, cross-service and asked:
          If a political solution to a foreign threat and its counter-part military solution to that threat were both known would be successful in countering the threat, which would you advocate for?
          80%+ responded for the political solution.
          (note: wording as close as memory serves, will try to locate issue to provide link)

          War sucks, and most, especially this generation of 0’s know it.

      • burqa November 14th, 2014 at 9:00 pm

        Excellent point.
        I knew many Marine Corps generals in my life, including several who were commandants. They were mostly what are known as “Old Breed” Marines and had fought as junior officers in vicious combat in World War II and Korea.
        A conversation I had with one is still clear in my memory, though it was 40 or so years ago.
        The television screens were filled with the butchery taking place in Biafra.
        I remarked to him that we should go in there and clean out the bad guys. This Marine, whose deeds on the battlefield are recorded in history books fixed me with a stare and asked, “And just how many Americans would die?”
        I stupidly remarked I thought we could do it suffering “light casualties.”
        He replied there is no such thing, that every death is a tragedy that brings profound suffering to a family and loved ones and robs our country of one of our own.
        At this point he was a lieutenant general and stood a good chance of commanding an expeditionary force sent in, had we chosen to do so at the time.
        He went on to teach me that we should never send in our military to fight and die or suffer wounds unless it was in the vital interest of the country and we had no other choice.

        The same with ISIS. If they constitute a mortal threat to Americans and we are going to fight them, then we should go ahead and crush them and not be so gradual, because it gives the enemy time to adapt to increasing pressure.

        • mea_mark November 14th, 2014 at 9:13 pm

          I am hoping that we are working on some kind of new drone technology where we can go in and surprise them with large numbers of drones instead of boots. I hope what we are doing now is really just containment until better plans make their way to fruition. If technology can save lives and what we need is time to finish developing and manufacturing, then let the talk go wherever it will if it is buying time.

          • fahvel November 15th, 2014 at 11:40 am

            you are hoping for death – with no guarantee who is killed.

          • mea_mark November 15th, 2014 at 11:47 am

            I am hoping to minimize casualties overall, especially American casualties and those of our allies.

        • fahvel November 15th, 2014 at 11:40 am

          is isis threatening the usa?

  6. Scopedog November 14th, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Uh, “considering” is not the same as “actually deploying”.

    Can we just wait and f**king see before jumping to conclusions, Alan? Sheesh….

    • Spirit of America November 14th, 2014 at 10:34 am

      Actually, no… if you remember, a few months ago they weren’t even ‘considering’ it…. things move/change, sometimes rapidly.
      On something like this, it is good to get talking about it early, so the public has as much time to think about it as well.
      My view.

    • fahvel November 15th, 2014 at 11:38 am

      take your head out of the sand.

  7. edmeyer_able November 14th, 2014 at 11:01 am

    I’m waiting for the people who berated Obama for ignoring the generals advice to berate him for following the generals advice…looking at you faux gnues and republican legislatures.

  8. fahvel November 15th, 2014 at 11:37 am

    well goodness, at least there will only be a modest number of dead american boys and girls – this shithead should lead the charge a la Custer.