February 14, 2015 3:00 pm -

So much for “no ground troops.”

President Obama hasn’t gotten approval for his “intentionally vague” Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS, but the Pentagon is already scrambling to escalate its military presence in the region in preparation of the ground war it would start.

Over 4,000 ground combat troops from Fort Carson’s 3rd Brigade are being sent to Kuwait under this new deployment, where they will make up the region’s largest collection of US ground troops, which will include heavy armored vehicles.

Even as President Obama continues to deny plans for a ground war, it’s not a secret what the troops are being sent to Kuwait for, and officials say they’re prepared for “any contingency,” which in this context means a fight with ISIS.

“Like” us on Facebook for a good time [su_center_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.

40 responses to U.S. Sending 4000 Ground Troops To Fight ISIS In Kuwait

  1. CHOCOL8MILK February 14th, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    This won’t end well.

  2. Um Cara February 14th, 2015 at 3:37 pm

    President Obama hasn’t gotten approval for his “intentionally vague” Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS, but the Pentagon is already scrambling to escalate its military presence in the region in preparation of the ground war it would start.

    Awesome! It’s been so long since we got into a war in the Middle East I was starting to think we had forgotten how.

    Perhaps a few additional Democrats will remember they are supposed to pretend to be liberals & will shut down the AUMF. Not that it will matter, mind you, but it would be kind of nifty.

    • CHOCOL8MILK February 14th, 2015 at 4:01 pm

      Under the war powers act (set a long time ago) The President can send troops to a foreign country without Congress approval for 30 days. I am utterly disappointed in this president, he promised we would not be knee deep in that region….no more wars there. Oops…here we go again. When will these idiots learn, one cannot fight religious extremists to an end (there will always be more as fighting them creates more), let them kill each other, get the heck out of the middle east.

      • CHOCOL8MILK February 14th, 2015 at 4:08 pm

        On a side note, Kuwait is pissed at Chevron and the U.S. for the new oil contract with Saudi Arabia. So, perhaps this is a way to appease the Kuwaiti government? They’ve basically requested all Chevron employees GTFO and they indicated they will build refineries in Kuwait. Perhaps this is our way of making sure the Chinese or Russians don’t get the oil niche there?

      • Um Cara February 14th, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        >let them kill each other, get the heck out of the middle east.

        I agree with everything you said, other than this ^^

        I think there are many things we can & should do to help all the good people being terrorized by ISIS, and we are morally obligated to do so. But the whole ‘blow stuff up real good’, appears to not be working as well as it does in the movies.

        • CHOCOL8MILK February 14th, 2015 at 4:21 pm


        • burqa February 14th, 2015 at 8:19 pm

          I think we also need to identify a national interest beyond just helping others being terrorized, if we are going to put American lives at risk. We can’t solve all the ills of the world, but we need to oppose threats to America and our national interests. President Obama has been right in being deliberate about this.

          • trees February 15th, 2015 at 3:58 am

            Could you define “national interests”?

          • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 4:32 am

            I wish I could.
            I guess it would be anything that would hurt us other than attacking our people, bass or facilities over there.
            We get a lot of oil from the region, so maintaining our supply line and stability in the region is one.
            Before we invaded Iraq, our strategic interest was in maintaining a balance of power with Iraq serving as a counterweight to Iran. This might explain why Reagan tried to covertly curry favor with both.
            Even when regime change became our policy under Clinton, the idea was to have him succeeded by another regime that was also hostile to Iran. Now our interest is in keeping Iran from bullying our friends and allies there.
            Ever since Nixon got us entangled over there with oil deals, we have been drawn into various conflicts and it has cost this nation dearly. This is why we need to become more independent of oil from the region so we can stand back and let them duke it out without us getting directly involved.

          • trees February 15th, 2015 at 5:32 am

            I think you would agree that it’s a little more than just letting a couple radical factions fight a cage match bout. The group that is establishing a caliphate has bigger designs then regional supremacy. They’re thinking in global terms….

          • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 6:10 am

            Sure, they have all sorts of grandiose ideas, but how realistic are they? In Afghanistan the Taliban was never able to tamp down all the warlords there. They were unable to administer the country, either. In teeny-tiny Gaza, Hamas has been unable to run the place, and so I think it would be in Syria were ISIS to take over.
            The notion of a caliphate is interesting, but I do not think it is within their reach, other than in a small area for a period of years before some other bunch of thugs overthrow them.
            This is how it goes with zealots like this who are good at murder, but how good are they at delivering clean water and picking up the trash? Running the bureaucracy of a nation-state in the 21st century takes skills beyond most of these guys and they tend to kill those who have such skills. They end up resorting to the only thing they know -severe repression and eventually the people revolt and hang the bastards.
            So if we’re going to get involved, I need to have spelled out for me what our national interest is.

      • trees February 15th, 2015 at 5:27 am

        I am utterly disappointed in this president, he promised we would not be knee deep in that region….

        We exist within a global economy and have a national interest in procuring the resources from that part of the world. That’s reality. Further, there are elements in that region that are an existential threat. It is in our best interest, on a lot of levels, to defeat this threat. To ignore the threat is akin to ignoring a malignant tumor. You deal with the threat in the same way you deal with a tumor. Letting it grow is the last thing you want to do….

  3. raypc800 February 14th, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    The ISIL mess is a result of the IRAQ Bush EGO trip. But it is way past time for the average American to tell all of the Middle East deal with your own religious extremist that are trying to destroy your land. See we in the USA have are own religious extremist “Domestic Terrorist”, party called the TP/GOP. So we need to deal with them.

  4. mea_mark February 14th, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    If their primary mission is defense and holding onto strategic ground and the ports then this really shouldn’t be a problem. I will wait and see what it looks like the intentions are before I determine how I feel about this. Defense is good, it cost the enemy more when they are on offense. If this turns into a war about spending the other persons resources, I would like to think we can win this time. Bush and Cheney lost the last time around.

    • burqa February 14th, 2015 at 8:15 pm

      That is the way it appears to me. I do not know the composition of this brigade, but to fight ISIS it will require light infantry, to a great degree, and not forces employing a lot of heavy armor.
      So I would expect us to use airborne, specops, rangers and Marines to go on the offensive against ISIS.
      As the situation changes, so must our response. It would be foolish to remain committed to an old mindset when the situation requires something different.

      • trees February 15th, 2015 at 5:43 am

        Actually, heavy armor has a place. When you want to overrun a position that has heavy machine guns, or larger troop numbers, you roll armor…. armor has a place, the first ones to build armored vehicles did so to overrun troop positions….armor is a way to reinforce and hold ground. Troops can fight behind armored columns as they advance, troops can take cover behind armor as they hold position. If the enemy has armor and you don’t, well, things probably are not going to turn out well for you….now, all that being said, yes armor can become a target

        • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 6:21 am

          Yes, it has a place, but fighting ISIS would be more of an unconventional war in which light infantry does best. With drones and laser-directed missiles and bombs, I think there is far less use for it. We sure didn’t need any in Afghanistan to overrun the country.
          One of my fave stories from that campaign was about one warlord we employed – I think it was Dostum. The two sides would get on the telephone or radio and trash talk to each other. Once Dostum got U.S. specops teams with lasers – I think it was SOFLAMS – used to guide munitions to the target, Dostum would get on the horn and say, “I coming for you with my death ray!”
          A guy on the ground with a laser and a radio can deliver more high explosive onto the target than a tank gunner.

  5. Apocalypse February 14th, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Remember “no boots on the ground”. “Mission creep”…

    We are escalating a war Obama declared when he said ISIS would be destroyed.
    He wants a coalition to fight but has also made a commitment to win. To me that means we will do what’s necessary to defeat them, and the AUMF will allow him the freedom to escalate as necessary to win.

    If we do defeat ISIS, it won’t end the chaos and destablization that we have created with our involvement. Perpetual war seems to be where we’re headed. Good for the military industrial complex and security state…bad for everyone else.

    • mea_mark February 14th, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      Perpetual war, not necessarily. If we don’t instigate and simply defend, it is the enemy who is trying to perpetuate war. It is our emotions that want to make us strike out and be the aggressor. When we keep our emotions (the republicans) in check, we can reason our way through this and let the enemy expend all their energy on hate while their resources dwindle away. Standing firm and holding to principals has long been a position of advantage. Let the enemy thrash about and weaken themselves and winning becomes easy, efficient and doesn’t cost a lot. Victory comes most easily when the enemy defeats themselves. Time to give the enemy enough rope to hang themselves.

      • Apocalypse February 14th, 2015 at 8:11 pm

        That’s optimistic, I hope you’re right.

  6. craig7120 February 14th, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Kuwait? Kuwait is in danger? What 5 Isis members got lost and ended up in Kuwait?

    Oh yeah, I forgot how important Kuwait is in the game of Risk.
    It’s the Beverly Hills of the Middle East, makes perfect fiscal sense.

    I guess I should read why Kuwait, but I don’t care, I’m sick of war, not to mention funding this method of policing.

    • mea_mark February 14th, 2015 at 7:14 pm

      I empathize. I am so tired of the way humanity settles differences of belief and allocation of resources. My God is better than your God, therefore I should have more, is incredibly stupid and tiresome.

  7. fancypants February 14th, 2015 at 7:18 pm

    its not the 4,000 troops you should be concerned about Its the additional _______ troops they will need months from now to finish the job.
    some people relate to this by saying ” when does the other shoe drop “

    • mea_mark February 14th, 2015 at 7:23 pm

      That’s a bridge to cross when we come to it, if we get there.

      • fancypants February 14th, 2015 at 8:25 pm

        its not ‘ if ‘ its when we get there
        Obama has a better fire suit then any steel industry blast furnace can provide but im afraid the gop is getting the bucket of gasoline ready if our president doesn’t act and very soon

        • burqa February 14th, 2015 at 8:43 pm

          Yes, it’s kind of funny the way they are reacting. On one hand, they want him to send in the troops but on the other they want to be against whatever he does – and that includes doing what they’ve been calling for.
          So now with Obama seeking this new AUMF, they see him roping them in, holding them to their word and they don’t much like that. They’d prefer to duck responsibility and just be argumentative, regardless of what the national interest is.

          • fahvel February 15th, 2015 at 5:20 am

            all this while using boys and girls in uniform as the pawns to a fking power struggle between elites/ president included – do any of them share the grief of a family member of a soldier who has been splattered across a sand wash or beheaded or burned – they do not care!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 5:55 am

            I don’t regard the thugs in ISIS or AQAP as being “elites,” nor do I view the mullahs in charge of Iran that way, nor do I view the Somali pirates as being “elites.”
            I like the fact that President Obama has been very cautious when it comes to deploying troops, but when he felt it was in our national interest he did so and I think he was right to go after those who posed a threat to us.
            If these troops are sent into a war then I expect a case to be made beforehand for it and will judge the case made on its own merits and then decide whether I agree or disagree with it.

          • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 5:56 am

            Under what circumstances would you support the use of our military power?

          • fahvel February 15th, 2015 at 8:55 am

            If my country or yours were attacked by something defineable, I’d use my military might – but after l’il bush fkd up the entire mid east and created a wellstorm of hatred against the west, I suppose I’ll wait until western powers stop ripping people off and then getting pissed when, in whatever way they can, they retaliate.

          • trees February 15th, 2015 at 1:42 pm

            They’re making sure that he owns it. When the conflict turns into a Guerilla campaign they want to make sure he can’t turn around and say, “I don’t know why we’re here….”

  8. Benji0804 February 14th, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    Don’t Kuwait have it’s own army to deffend it’s self from Islamic State or they backing them?

  9. Mike February 14th, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Great, I guess we haven’t learned our lesson yet…Really Obama, I thought you were smarter than this…?

    • burqa February 14th, 2015 at 9:37 pm

      What lesson are you referring to?

      • Mike February 14th, 2015 at 11:58 pm

        The one about not being able to save the Middle East from the Middle East.

        • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 12:03 am

          Is that what Obama is doing?
          I think this has something to do with a perceived threat to our national interest, but that’s quite different than saving the Middle East from itself..

          • fahvel February 15th, 2015 at 5:18 am

            and your national interest is what?

          • burqa February 15th, 2015 at 5:29 am

            Trees asked me to define “national interest” below and I listed some, below.
            I don’t know what country you are from so I have no idea what your national interest is.

          • fahvel February 15th, 2015 at 8:51 am

            la France – my question is directed to the idea of what national interest or right to national interest is the mid-east turmoil creating.

  10. amongoose February 15th, 2015 at 12:47 am

    They are actually relieving a unit deployed there.