skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Will Obama Send Military Special Forces To Iraq?


Obama Mulls Sending Special Forces To Iraq

President Barack Obama is mulling over the option of sending in a small contingent of U.S. military Special Forces into Iraq, according to CBS News.

While the White House would not confirm this as possibility, spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement:

"The president was very clear that we will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq. That remains the case and he has asked his national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help support Iraqi security forces."

Indeed, the Military Times reports the mission of the Special Forces would be limited:

[I]t would focus on training and advising beleaguered Iraqi troops, many of whom have fled their posts across the nation’s north and west as the al-Qaida-inspired insurgency has advanced in the worst threat to the country since American troops left in 2011.

The Associated Press reports U.S. intelligence operatives haven't been allowed in Iraq since 2011, limiting some of Obama's options:

The lack of clear intelligence appears to have shifted President Barack Obama’s immediate focus away from airstrikes in Iraq because officials said there are few obvious targets.

An unnamed U.S. official told the Military Times any Special Forces contingent sent to Iraq would be minimal, with at most 100 Special Forces soldiers. However, there is at least one major hurdle standing in the way of sending in these elite troops:

It’s not clear how quickly the Special Forces could arrive in Iraq. It’s also unknown whether they would remain in Baghdad or be sent to the nation’s north, where the Sunni Muslim insurgency has captured large swaths of territory collaring Baghdad, the capital of the Shiite-led government.

What do you think the United States should do to quell the ISIS uprising in Iraq? Or should anything be done at all? Have your say in our comments section!


Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 18, 2014 at 1:26 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Could Chilean special forces swoop into the USA , capture "Sideshow" Kissinger and spirit him out of the country just like we did with Ahmed Khatta in Libya???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 18, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Why are disadvantaged Americans denied help by their government because of limited resources but there are unlimited resources for Iraq and other countries?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mmikey'

Mmikey | June 18, 2014 at 2:02 p.m. ― 2 years ago

last I heard in the news they were on the way already.

Lots of heavy lift planes leaving from Marine Corps Air Station Miramar the last 2 days too.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 18, 2014 at 2:05 p.m. ― 2 years ago

DeLaRick because oil going to $200 a barrel would hurt everyone in the country, and giving more money to deadbeats doesn't really help them... it feeds the problem and makes it worse.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 18, 2014 at 2:21 p.m. ― 2 years ago


That theory is right up there with "the U.S. will be treated as liberators and Iraq will be stable in 6 months." The only thing which has been proven is that our military misadventure into Iraq has been an unmitigated disaster.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 18, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Ok, I actually agree with you about the military thing. We should stay home. But I don't think we need to give money to people who choose to stop putting effort into their lives. I think we should tell them if they go to school, we will pay for it. If they want job skill training, we will pay for it. But I don't think people should be given money just because they don't want to work.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 18, 2014 at 3:20 p.m. ― 2 years ago

"The president was very clear that we will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq."


US Special Forces are no longer considered US troops?

I guess Obama simply considers them his personal army. Well, to be fair, most dictators have one.

Ordered to their possible death by one single man for no other reason than a feeble attempt to save his sinking poll numbers.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 18, 2014 at 3:55 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Are the war-mongers REALLY using the "oil money" justification AGAIN!?!?

Wow, I realize ignorance causes history to repeat itself, but this isn't even really history it happened within the last decade or so.

Bush, Cheney and the other masterminds behind the Iraq War told the American people it would "pay for itself" through oil revenue.

Not only did it not "pay for itself", the United States then spent billions of dollars beyond core military measures to build infrastructure in Iraq.

A major recession hit and our nation was unprepared for it due to the unnecessary and irresponsible spending in Iraq.

And, when the recession began and the U.S. economy began to sink, Iraq had billions in cash surplus courtesy of the American tax payer.

This war was not only unnecessary, it was actually an attack on OURSELVES.

Those responsible for it should be in prison, but instead they are on national television telling us we should do it all over again.

It's ridiculous.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 18, 2014 at 4:36 p.m. ― 2 years ago


Don't just blame Bush and Cheney.

Obama lied to you as well and kept the war going from 2008 to 2011.

There are still thousands of heavily armed US contractors protecting the important stuff (oil) and 5,000 "diplomats" at the world's largest "embassy" (Shhh...don't tell the Iraqis that it really isn't an embassy).

Let us not forget the "embassy" cost nearly $1 Billion. But Obama wasn't happy with just a billion, so he ordered another $100 million in upgrades in 2012 with astronomical (thus classified) operating expenses.

Way to go Democrats! Another proud moment for you.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 19, 2014 at 7:31 a.m. ― 2 years ago


Obama is guilty of not articulating the facts and repercussions to the people. Bush's administration is 100% responsible for the war and the destablization of the Middle East. Bush's administration turned a police action into war; wasted $1 trillion; created a new generation of wounded soldiers; helped Osama Bin Laden achieve 75% of his goals; and most importantly, set our country on a permanent war footing which has resulted in the militarization of all aspects of American life. It doesn't matter if you agree or not. That's how history will record it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2014 at 9:35 a.m. ― 2 years ago

DeLaRick how long are you going to blame Bush for the utter failure of Obama as a president? It has been 5 years. Obama has sent more troops to war, racked up more debt than any other president, taken more of our liberties, taken more of our tax dollars, and is a bumbling ineffectual idiot when it comes to international relations. I guess this is what happens when a community organizer with zero experience tries to run the greatest nation on earth.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 19, 2014 at 9:40 a.m. ― 2 years ago


Your first post was right on the money (so to speak).

But now you continue to parrot the tired old line that it was the last guy. Yes, Bush was terrible and 100% responsible for starting the war. But Obama is 100% responsible for continuing it and further destabilizing the Middle East.

We've watched Obama take a terrible situation and make it worse.

To me Obama and Bush are identical, but you think history will condemn Bush and exalt Obama? You're living in a fantasy world. Please come back to Earth.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 19, 2014 at 10:40 a.m. ― 2 years ago

CD and JM,

The Prime Minister of Iraq, himself, did not renew the status agreement. We had no option but to withdraw and millions of Americans were anxious to turn the page on the whole matter. Turn back the clock 7 - 8 years. A majority of Americans already believed the war was a mistake and the unthinkable - a black, junior senator from Illinois defeated the Clinton political machine and won the presidency - occurred mostly because of Obama's stance against the war. He had a mandate to follow through on the Bush administration's status agreement and end the war. After he won, Obama fell into the same old Washington trap of omni-directional placation and reversed himself on some, but not all, policies. No one is absolving Obama, but let's be serious about whose initiative it was.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 19, 2014 at 11:48 a.m. ― 2 years ago


Yes, the original blame goes to Bush. 110%.

But as you said, Obama was elected on an anti-war platform. He did not honor it (and we all knew he wouldn't, except for the idiots who voted for him) and thus that puts him in the same failure/blame category as Bush.

I have yet to see Obama take ANY action that would be considered anti-war ANYWHERE in the world.

Obama is just an ineffective (thankfully) carbon copy of Bush.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2014 at 12:14 p.m. ― 2 years ago

We just need to stop trying to liberate Islamic nations. People who choose to follow that religion are unable to understand what a democracy is, let alone participate in one. They think Islam should rule the land, and their personal lives. Trying to force them into a democratic society is pointless, and will never work. Islam is a brutal dictator and they willingly subject themselves to its' rule. If this is how they want to live, we should not interfere.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'DeLaRick'

DeLaRick | June 19, 2014 at 2:07 p.m. ― 2 years ago

Bigger point: London and Washington cannot match wits with Moscow and Beijing. The events of the last 13 years bears that out. Our politicians are a particular brand of intelligent idiots with no street smarts whatsoever. Our foibles must be hilarious to the Chinese.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | June 19, 2014 at 2:39 p.m. ― 2 years ago

DeLaRick I agree, and I believe the reason is Moscow and Beijing are less encumbered by ridiculous amounts of political correctness. They put the interests of their countries ahead of the feelings of sensitive, whining leftists.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'SalULoyd'

SalULoyd | June 19, 2014 at 7:40 p.m. ― 2 years ago

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators . . . It is [not] the wish of [our] government to impose upon you alien institutions." -- British Gen. Frederick Stanley Maudem Baghdad, 1917

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 20, 2014 at 8:25 p.m. ― 2 years ago

CA OFFENDER, it is not so much that Obama has not taken any "anti-war action" as you call it. (His Nobel Prize was preposterous, yes and Guantanamo is still operating.) Obama's moves have more to do with placating the rabid hawks in congress who see him as "weak" or "not a friend of Israel" or "is changing the country" or he "hates the military," and other such reactionary NONSENSE, to be polite about it. He's been trying to play the moderate, albeit not too successfully.

As a whole, his foreign policy has been inconsistent as well as passive-aggressive.

I would take blame ALL the way back to St. Ronnie. Before St. Ronnie, the USA really was uninvolved in Iraq, except for 1974-75 when our wonderful CIA aided the Kurds guerrilas and then cut them loose out of political expediency.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'CaliforniaDefender'

CaliforniaDefender | June 22, 2014 at 11:57 a.m. ― 2 years ago


The point I'm making is that he was elected on an anti-war platform. Most Americans supported it, left, center, and even a few on the right including the tea party. But he immediately turned his back on all of us.

Yes, Reagan was to blame for a lot of our poor foreign policies today. But the bigger devil was JFK. He took a relatively peaceful 1950's and made the US the primary instigator of global instability that continues to this day.

( | suggest removal )