world

U.S. sending new special ops force to fight Islamic State in Iraq

32 Comments
By DEB RIECHMANN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

This is a useless symbolic gesture, nothing more. Are they going to capture ISIS leaders ? Why just capture and not kill them with a drone that doesn't put US lives at risk.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Exactly.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This is a clear indication that the obama administration is changing its strategy. Even though he (obama himself) won't come out and say so. Obvious that the "strategy" before was ineffective and a waste of time.

He's finally listening to his military advisers. Good for him, it only took about 8 years.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The five-sided idiots could have done this a long time ago, if they were serious about actually fighting ISIS. Curious that this announcement comes on the heels of Moscow outing Turkey on its illegal oil business with ISIS.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is a move in the wrong direction. All westerners need to get out of the Middle East. ISIS was very clear after the Paris attacks that they did it because of French meddling in the Middle East. Sending in more fighters is just asking for them to attack the US. Anyone promoting more American presence fighting ISIS is basically asking to have ISIS do a terrorist attack on American soil.

Let's keep our people safe, and leave the snake pit to the snakes. Get out of the Middle East and stay out.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"No boots on the ground," eh? Spec Ops must all be wearing sandals or something.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Sorry, all. This is right move.

ISIS must be destroyed.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan redux. The CCP and even India must be smiling as the US and all other nations involved continue spending money they don't have. That money would be better used finding alternatives to petroleum. Let the oil kingdoms sort out their own problems. Bring the troops home to shore up their own borders.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This is a move in the wrong direction. All westerners need to get out of the Middle East. ISIS was very clear after the Paris attacks that they did it because of French meddling in the Middle East.

After ISIS has been crushed to the point where their followers are getting second thoughts about having a possible tomahawk missile fall on their heads, then we should stop. Funny, ISIS would never have the brass to do the same thing in ISrael on a massive level. It just wouldn't happen, because they know, that would be the beginning of the end for them.

Sending in more fighters is just asking for them to attack the US.

They're already doing that, second we are already infidels in their eyes anyway and we should be killed, so why on Earth would anyone in their right frame of mind care about that, knowing that, they want to kill us anyway, it's enough and the US should lead in destroying the radical jihadists. Either way, we will without a doubt be drawn in anyway sooner or later again, so why deny the inevitable?

Anyone promoting more American presence fighting ISIS is basically asking to have ISIS do a terrorist attack on American soil.

And we can make more bullets to stop them.

Let's keep our people safe, and leave the snake pit to the snakes.

Yes, and like with the Kenyan embassy bombing or the USS Cole where we had NO troops in the ME or like the blind Sheik who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 all these attacks and the Mideast still had it in for us. Sorry, not buying that illogical capitulation diatribe. I'll always go with a military expert over ANY president that has expertise in the field of combat and knowledge of war and security.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

After ISIS has been crushed to the point where their followers are getting second thoughts about having a possible tomahawk missile fall on their heads, then we should stop

Which just leaves the door open for the next group, made up of those alienated by foreign armies bombing their lands, killing innocents in the process.

You seem to want to continue this cycle indefinitely, which will result in the deaths of your own people. Why do you want your own people to die?

They're already doing that

ISIS has not attacked the US... yet.

second we are already infidels in their eyes anyway and we should be killed, so why on Earth would anyone in their right frame of mind care about that, knowing that, they want to kill us anyway

Because being there focuses their attention on the US, instead of on each other. It also gives them a common enemy to unite against, so that instead of fighting each other, they are fighting the US.

No matter which way you cut it, even if you stamp out ISIS, you will never stamp out hatred of the US by bombing them. You only invite more hatred against the US, which will lead to more attacks against the US, and more deaths of US citizens.

I have no idea why you would want more of your people to get killed.

Blood begets blood, anger begets anger, hate begets hate.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Weasel wording at work.

The title of the article says Iraq.

Paragraph 5 says Syria. "(the new expeditionary force)...would be in position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria."

In Iraq we have a request from the government. In Syria, what do we have?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Funny, ISIS would never have the brass to do the same thing in ISrael on a massive level

Why hasn't ISIS done anything against Israel? Because their masters won't let them?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Why do you want your own people to die?

The only answer to this could be that the war mongers have no personal stake in this. None of their relatives, no one they know would have to put themselves in harms way invading a sovereign state. And they obviously could care two rat's about the deaths of innocent people who don't look like them.

Some of them have been to war, but why they would want to send anyone to have to endure what they did is beyond me. Unless they served way back in the rear with the gear. Maybe they should be the first to re-volunteer.

Another reason for wanting more wars is as a previous poster said to make more bullets, and I'll add other weapons. A war based economy requires something akin to perpetual war. If the chicken hawks prevail, they should offer to pay extra taxes to support military invasions. Bring the troops home and get off petroleum!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Hasn't the "pretend they are a junior varsity group" approach proved to be a failure? Violence begets violence but these scumbags need to go, or at minimum stop the slaughter. They've only grown stronger and bolder. The next group will either keep to themselves or face a similar fate of destruction.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

A war based economy requires something akin to perpetual war.

Exactly what we have, dressed up as the Hokey Cokey.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Which just leaves the door open for the next group, made up of those alienated by foreign armies bombing their lands, killing innocents in the process.

Innocent people dying is a part of war, NO one wants it, but that doesn't mean, we leave and then they strike and we just say, more attacks will come, but we can never strike back or defend ourselves. That is a ludicrous statement. If Europe thought that way, the entire continent would have swept and turned into Muslims or the same for America had they decided to give in to the British. You fight and you fight hard and you fight to win!

You seem to want to continue this cycle indefinitely, which will result in the deaths of your own people. Why do you want your own people to die?

When it comes to freedom, then it's something worth dying for. And if Americans didn't value that, All of Europe would be speaking Deutsch now.

ISIS has not attacked the US... yet.

Yet, but they will as sure as the sun rises and the tide rolls in and out.

No matter which way you cut it, even if you stamp out ISIS, you will never stamp out hatred of the US by bombing them.

And they will never stamp out our FREEDOM and the will to fight for and defend it.

You only invite more hatred against the US, which will lead to more attacks against the US, and more deaths of US citizens.

So in other words, give in, leave, capitulate and hope for the best and when another 9/11 or Paris style attack comes again, just turn the other cheek and just clean up and repeat the cycle of ignoring them and pray that when we do get attack that it doesn't kill AS MANY people.

As I said, If liberals want to live in a theoretical world where we all hold hands and sing songs and give the terrorist flowers, tea and cookies, go right ahead. As I said before, I will go with the stronger horse and will listen to any military analyst over ANY president, especially one that's like Obama.

I have no idea why you would want more of your people to get killed.

I don't, but if it's for freedom, even I would gladly take a bullet.

Blood begets blood, anger begets anger, hate begets hate.

I firmly believe in an "eye for an eye."

The only answer to this could be that the war mongers have no personal stake in this.

Of course we do, what are you talking about? What the....

None of their relatives, no one they know would have to put themselves in harms way invading a sovereign state.

That was a totally irresponsible statement. As for me, I do and there are many that would go, if you had a strong leader to guide them.

And they obviously could care two rat's about the deaths of innocent people who don't look like them.

Really, I feel the left could give a darn about whether we are attacked or not.

Some of them have been to war, but why they would want to send anyone to have to endure what they did is beyond me.

The people that want to fight for the country would gladly fight for their country and the people that won't will be working to clean up the air so that the terrorists can breath easier and become better and more efficient at killing us.

Unless they served way back in the rear with the gear. Maybe they should be the first to re-volunteer.

And I know a lot of people that would do that.

Another reason for wanting more wars is as a previous poster said to make more bullets,

So how should we kill them? With daisies? Roses or Carnations perhaps?

and I'll add other weapons. A war based economy requires something akin to perpetual war. If the chicken hawks prevail, they should offer to pay extra taxes to support military invasions. Bring the troops home and get off petroleum!

I have never met a liberal that didn't love ANY tax. But even for that, the people that care their country would do anything to protect your right to free speech, even if it's about unicorns and theoretical, hypotheticals.

Why hasn't ISIS done anything against Israel? Because their masters won't let them?

What masters? Israel, unlike the US is NOT dumb, they know what they treat is and will never hesitate to thwart and neutralize that threat. And WE have a president that is the joke of the world and thinks by peddling BS to the people that climate change is the reason for the terrorists having a hissy fit and are willing to chop of peoples heads because they can't breath properly. Absolutely amazing!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Innocent people dying is a part of war, NO one wants it, but that doesn't mean, we leave and then they strike and we just say, more attacks will come, but we can never strike back or defend ourselves.

Defend ourselves against what? We're the aggressors - we invaded their lands unprovoked. We have been killing their people with drones and bombs. We're the ones who are in the wrong. And now you want to throw good lives after bad.

When it comes to freedom, then it's something worth dying for.

Except that this doesn't 'come to freedom'. On the contrary, we invaded their country - they are the ones fighting for freedom. And on top of that, you aren't the one who will be dying, it's those that you send to do the killing, and those that they kill. Easy for you to say its worth dying for when you aren't the one who will die.

Yet, but they will as sure as the sun rises and the tide rolls in and out.

I believe that was the argument for invading Iraq, wasn't it. What you don't seem to realize is that when you invade first on the basis that you figure they may attack you in the future, it puts you in the wrong, and justifies any attacks they may perpetrate against you.

You only invite more hatred against the US, which will lead to more attacks against the US, and more deaths of US citizens.

So in other words, give in, leave, capitulate and hope for the best and when another 9/11 or Paris style attack comes again, just turn the other cheek and just clean up and repeat the cycle of ignoring them and pray that when we do get attack that it doesn't kill AS MANY people.

You're speaking of hypotheticals, they're speaking of reality. They're already suffering 9/11 and Paris style attacks against their people, perpetrated by yours. Leaving isn't capitulating, it's stopping ourselves from being wrong any further.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This reminds me of the Vietnam war when we started deploying military advisors, the rest is history.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

From what I've been reading, it's going to take a very large effort via ground forces to really take out ISIS. Airstrikes help, but that's it. At this point I do not support US forces being sent in in large numbers. I might change my opinion if we have a true international effort on the ground, and if ISIS keeps attacking outside of their borders we might actually see that. Imagine Russian and American forces working on the same side in a firefight.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

These fools want to step into a messy situation with an impossible mission (trying to fight ISIS and Assad at the same time), and without a clear endgame strategy.

Sheer lunacy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

U.S. sending new special ops force to fight Islamic State in Iraq

It appears that "fight" is code for support, arm, and train.

Why would anyone believe that NOW they will honestly try to fight terror.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Defend ourselves against what? We're the aggressors - we invaded their lands unprovoked. We have been killing their people with drones and bombs. We're the ones who are in the wrong. And now you want to throw good lives after bad.

And removing a maniac maniacal dictator from power wasn't a good thing, we should have allowed Saddam to just snuggle up and further take chances with him. The Tyrant is gone and NO ONE misses him. I don't want to go off topic, but having said that, we are just supposed to just lay and take it up the..... ? That's it, just throw up our hands and say to the terrorists, whatever we did to protect our interests, we give ourselves to you to become sacrificial lambs as a token of our supposedly bad behavior or so called injustices. You'll have to excuse me, but that is just a bunch of horse, you know what. No one in their right frame of mind or literally any miltary analyst would even think that's a plausible solution. A person spewing those comments would be laughed out of a room. Even I'm not for sending in ground troops, but I'm definetly for sending in as many special ops as we need to pinpoint the high value senior targets to get the senior commanders in ISIS and yes, we know Obama doesn't care, but now plans are being made for a post-Obama presidency and what to do about ISIS when he's gone, that problem will still remain, even if Obama is on stage dancing with Ellen and plugging his book.

Except that this doesn't 'come to freedom'. On the contrary, we invaded their country - they are the ones fighting for freedom.

Strange, seriously....how many Americans, Brits and the other so called coalition nations are over there, blowing themselves up in the name of Jesus Christ and killing indiscriminately at any available chance they get? How many westerners are sawing off people's heads and making TV appearances making threats on Muslim Television? Also, how many westerners are wearing suicide vests? How many Westerners took in refugees? How many Arab nations took in refugees, their Muslims, in fact? How many Arab nations are doing their absolute best to save the Christian and Yazidi communities?

So what is it they're fighting for again?

And on top of that, you aren't the one who will be dying, it's those that you send to do the killing, and those that they kill. Easy for you to say its worth dying for when you aren't the one who will die

A lot of my family members are in the military, I have a lot of friends that are in the military formerly and presently and the vast majority of them do not have a problem being deployed if there is a clear strategy to defeat the enemy, as long as Obama is president, the majority don't want to go and they don't want to be a part of anything that the president doesn't believe in and many are frustrated and for many the moral is very low.

I believe that was the argument for Invading Iraq, wasn't it. What you don't seem to realize is that when you invade first on the basis that you figure they may attack you in the future, it puts you in the wrong, and justifies any attacks they may perpetrate against you.

So if I punch you and gave you a black eye because you hit my sister and you punched me back in retaliation for that black eye that YOU think was unfair and unjust, I'm supposed to just stand their and let you whoop my *ss??? That's pretty much the same analogy you're putting forth. There is no way I would do that, I would let you take your best shot and after that, I will make you see stars.

You're speaking of hypotheticals, they're speaking of reality.

No, I'm speaking reality and that reality will worsen if we allow these refugees to come in, because ISIS already said, they would infiltrate the refugees and send fighters. So why increase the risk. No way. Put them far in Arizona and build camps and let's take our time to vet these people.

They're already suffering 9/11 and Paris style attacks against their people, perpetrated by yours. Leaving isn't capitulating, it's stopping ourselves from being wrong any further.

Tell that to the Swedes,Che Danes, the Germans, the Spanish and all the other countries where a lot of radical jihadists caused problems. How about condemning many that live in foreign countries and that flat out refuse to assimilate! I grew up in Europe and I have seen it all the time. If we go to their country, we HAVE to live and abide by their rules and yet, you say nothing of they go to any other country they must do the same. Is that a bad thing to say or do you want to give them a pass as well and blame colonialism and ththey suffered, so it's natural for the radicals to act out. I hope you are not implying that? Are you? Because that would be the worst excuse ever.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And removing a maniac maniacal dictator from power wasn't a good thing, we should have allowed Saddam to just snuggle up and further take chances with him. The Tyrant is gone and NO ONE misses him.

You don't think middle class Iraqis who had a decent life and have seen their country absolutely destroyed, falling into the hands of ISIS, don't wish that Saddam was still in power? I think you're kidding yourself.

Not only that, you're ignoring two major points:

1) The war was supposedly to find WMDs. Outing Saddam was never the stated main goal.

2) There are tyrants all over the world that the US hasn't toppled. Kim Jongs anyone?

So what is it they're fighting for again?

American lies, and oil.

So if I punch you and gave you a black eye because you hit my sister and you punched me back in retaliation for that black eye that YOU think was unfair and unjust, I'm supposed to just stand their and let you whoop my *ss???

Incorrect analogy, as the WMDs didn't exist. The analogy would be:

If I punch you because I think you hit my sister, when you were actually just giving her a back massage, and you punch me back for hitting me, I'm just supposed to let you whoop my ass?

And the answer is 'yes'.

And meanwhile, you're still preaching a course of action that will result in more deaths on both sides for no good reason other than that your country was wrong in the first place.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

That's it, just throw up our hands and say to the terrorists, whatever we did to protect our interests, we give ourselves to you to become sacrificial lambs as a token of our supposedly bad behavior or so called injustices.

What were the US and UK's interests in MENA? Do you mean petroleum? If the oil and natural gas are on another country's land, how could the US and UK give them back?

No one in their right frame of mind or literally any miltary analyst would even think that's a plausible solution.

How would a chicken hawk know whether a military analyst is right? Ask your friends and family who served?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Sounds like even the Iraqi PM has not invited these new troops in and does not want them there.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/usa-special-forces-iraq-151201160932529.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I hear China is going to join the fight against IS any day now.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why do we have to fight ISIS again?

Was it what they did or what we think they might do? I don't remember. However I can remember pretty clearly a good deal of what American and other western nations have been doing to the entire Middle East since at least Operation Ajax.

Somebody help me out here. Why do we need to stop ISIS?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

he refugeeDEC. 02, 2015 - 10:13PM JST Why do we have to fight ISIS again? Was it what they did or what we think they might do? I don't remember. However I can remember pretty clearly a good deal of what American and other western nations have been doing to the entire Middle East since at least Operation Ajax. Somebody help me out here. Why do we need to stop ISIS?

Oh, no need to stop ISIS at all, my dear refugee. That is, if you want worldwide sharia, mass murder, probably nuclear detonations and all the other fun ISIS stuff.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

“This is an important capability because it takes advantage of what we’re good at,” Carter said. “We’re good at intelligence, we’re good at mobility, we’re good at surprise

Ha-ha . . . the "Obama administration" has nearly done 180. What an abrupt change in policy. Hmm, wonder why?

Now, make a full 360 by blocking the islamic refugees too. Lo and behold, both France & Russia are n' the fight too. Hit em' where they breathe. And hit em' HARD!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Oh, no need to stop ISIS at all, my dear refugee. That is, if you want worldwide sharia, mass murder, probably nuclear detonations and all the other fun ISIS stuff.

And what time frame are you giving ISIS to take over the entire world? And are you quite sure that someone's crazy aunt won't escape the basement and take over the world before they do?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You don't think middle class Iraqis who had a decent life and have seen their country absolutely destroyed, falling into the hands of ISIS, don't wish that Saddam was still in power? I think you're kidding yourself.

That depends on who you ask. The Iraqis that I grew up with in LA had a very negative and nasty opinion about Saddam and you have a lot of Iraqis in LA that fled Saddam's regime.

Not only that, you're ignoring two major points:

1) The war was supposedly to find WMDs. Outing Saddam was never the stated main goal.

Sure, I never bought that line, I always have said for the record, the Bush admin. should have just said they were going to get rid of him, I would have supported that.

2) There are tyrants all over the world that the US hasn't toppled. Kim Jongs anyone?

But none that was a threat for the US. Again, I don't want to get off track here.

American lies, and oil.

Everyone lies and WE ALL NEED oil.

And meanwhile, you're still preaching a course of action that will result in more deaths on both sides for no good reason other than that your country was wrong in the first place.

That's your opinion. But I believe we need to do everything to kill ISIS and oh, by the way, Obama is not talking about it, but there are more operations underway, Gen. Jack Keane mentioned the other day more Special ops have been deployed and are taking out hight targets. The White House is not deeply commenting on it, that does explain the tense look on his face. So Obama wants to turn his head and not talk about it, as Commander in chief, he has the final say and has to sign off on these missions and I know they had to drag him kicking and screaming to put his signature on this, but he's starting, although, very slowly to get on board....to a point.

How would a chicken hawk know whether a military analyst is right? Ask your friends and family who served?

Chicken Hawk? What in the world are you talking about, man?

Sounds like even the Iraqi PM has not invited these new troops in and does not want them there.

You actually think they would invite Sunni troops to come in???? That will never happen, of course not!

Somebody help me out here. Why do we need to stop ISIS?

Wow, dude, just wow! So where were you during the beheadings, the creation of the caliphate, the slaughtering of the religious minorities, the raping and killing of children, the radical twisted version of Sharia and trying to impose it on the rest of the world, the attacks across the globe, recently Paris, maybe that would be a good indicator as to why we might need to stop them.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@ The refugee. Time frame - if you were in control I'd say it'd be happening very very soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites