By Bill Van Auken
U.S.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno (left) observes as the 2nd Battalion, 75th
Ranger Regiment conducts a live fire exercise at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA Jan.
31, 2014.
U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Steve Cortez (Wikimedia Commons)
U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Steve Cortez (Wikimedia Commons)
The
accelerating drive to a new US war in the Middle East, extending from Iraq to
Syria and potentially beyond, has laid bare a stark contradiction between President
Barack Obama’s public rejection of any US “boots on the ground” and
increasingly assertive statements by top generals that such deployments cannot
be ruled out.
Underlying
this semi-public dispute between the US president—the titular “commander-in-chief”—and
the military brass are the realities underlying another war of aggression being
launched on the basis of lies for the second time in barely a decade.
It is
being foisted on the American public as an extension of the 13-year-old “global
war on terror,” with Obama warning this week that the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) “if left unchecked… could pose a growing threat to the United
States.”
In
reality, the ISIS threat, such as it is, stems entirely from US imperialist
interventions that have ravaged first Iraq, through a war and occupation that
claimed some one million lives, and then Syria, in a US-backed sectarian war
for regime-change—in which ISIS was the beneficiary of arms and aid from the US
and its regional allies—that has killed well over 100,000 and turned millions
into refugees.
The
collapse of Iraq’s security forces in the face of an ISIS offensive that was
part of a broader Sunni revolt against Iraq’s US-installed Shi’ite sectarian
government is now being used as the justification for a US military
intervention aimed at reasserting US military dominance in Iraq, intensifying
the war to overthrow the Assad regime in neighboring Syria, and escalating the
confrontations with the key allies of Damascus—Iran and Russia.
Such
strategic ambitions cannot be achieved with such unreliable proxy forces as the
Iraqi military and the so-called Syrian “rebels.” They require the unrestrained
use of Washington’s military might. This is why the generals are publicly
challenging the blanket commitment made by Obama ruling out any US ground war
in Iraq or Syria.
Over
the past several days, both White House and Pentagon spokesmen have issued
“clarifying” statements in an attempt to smooth over what increasingly suggests
something close to insubordination by the top uniformed brass against the
president.
The Washington
Post pointed to the conflict Friday in a lead article entitled “In
military, skepticism of Obama’s plan,” writing, “Flashes of disagreement over
how to fight the Islamic State are mounting between President Obama and US
military leaders, the latest sign of strain in what often has been an awkward
and uneasy relationship.”
The
first major public airing of the divisions between the military command and the
White House came Tuesday in congressional testimony in which Gen. Martin
Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that circumstances
in Iraq and Syria could require the introduction of US ground troops and he
would not rule out their deployment. He added that the commander of CENTCOM,
which oversees US military operations in the Middle East, had already proposed
the intervention of US troops in the campaign to retake the Mosul dam last
month, but had been overruled by the White House.
A day
later, Obama appeared to rule out such action even more categorically, telling
a captive audience of US troops at MacDill Air Force Base Wednesday: “As your
commander-in-chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our Armed Forces to
fighting another ground war in Iraq.”
This
hardly settled the question, however. Speaking on the same day as the
president, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff and former top US
commander in Iraq, told journalists that air strikes would prove insufficient
to achieve Washington’s ostensible goal of destroying ISIS. “You’ve got to have
ground forces that are capable of going in and rooting them out,” he said.
Odierno
intensified his argument on Friday, telling reporters that air strikes alone
would grow increasingly problematic as ISIS forces intermingled with Iraq’s
civilian population.
“When
you target, you want to make sure you are targeting the right people,” the Army
commander said. “The worst thing that can happen for us is if we start killing
innocent Iraqis, innocent civilians.” He added that US ground forces would be
needed to direct the bombing campaign.
Odierno
referred to the 1,600 US troops the Obama administration has already deployed
to Iraq as “a good start,” but added that as the US military campaign
developed, so too could the demand for further deployments. “Based on that
assessment we’ll make further decisions,” he said.
The
Army chief warned that the US was embarking on a protracted war in the region.
“This is going to go on,” he said. “This is not a short term—I think the
president said three years. I agree with that—three years, maybe longer. And so
what we want to do is do this right. Assess it properly, see how it’s going,
adjust as we go along, to make sure we can sustain this.”
As to
US ground troops entering combat together with Iraqi units, Odierno stated, “I
don’t rule anything out. I don’t ever rule anything out, personally.”
Even
more blunt was Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, the former commander of CENTCOM,
who retired only last year. Testifying before the House Intelligence Committee,
he directly attacked Obama’s public position of “no boots on the ground,”
stating, “You just don’t take anything off the table up front, which it appears
the administration has tried to do.”
Mattis
added: “If a brigade of our paratroopers or a battalion landing team of our
Marines would strengthen our allies at a key juncture and create
havoc/humiliation for our adversaries, then we should do what is necessary with
our forces that exist for that very purpose.”
Even
Obama’s defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, appeared to contradict the president’s
assertion about no ground troops, telling the House Armed Services Committee
Thursday, “We are at war and everything is on the table.” Hagel also revealed
that the 1,600 “trainers” and “advisers” who have been deployed to Iraq are
receiving combat pay.
It is
apparent that the Obama administration is using a hyper-technical definition of
“combat troops” to exclude the military’s special operation units from this
category, even if they end up engaged in combat.
The
position taken by the generals has found ample political support from the
right-wing editorial board of the Wall Street Journal as well as
congressional Republicans. The Journal argued in an editorial Friday
that Obama’s “promise never to put ground troops into Iraq or Syria is already
undermining the campaign before serious fighting begins against the Islamic
State. Few believe him, and they shouldn't if Mr. Obama wants to defeat the
jihadists.”
The
editorial compared Obama’s denial about “combat troops” to the claims made at
the beginning of the Vietnam War that US troops were acting only as “advisers,”
warning that the president could face the same fate as Lyndon Johnson, who
“gave the impression of looming victory… only to have to escalate again and
again.”
Rep.
Howard “Buck” McKeon (Republican of California), the chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, told the Washington Post that Obama should
“follow the … professional advice of the military” and “not take options off
the table.”
The
assertiveness of the top military brass in contradicting the White House is fed
by the subservience and cowardice of civilian authorities, including the
president and Congress. The latter adjourned this week after voting in both the
House and Senate for Obama’s plan to shift $500 million in Pentagon funding to
the arming and training of so-called “moderate rebels” in Syria. The measure
was inserted as an amendment to a continuing resolution to fund the federal
government through mid-December.
No
serious debate, much less direct vote, was taken on the region-wide war that
Washington is launching in the Middle East. The legislators have no inclination
to be seen taking a position on this action—much less an interest in exercising
their constitutional power—for fear that it will reverberate against them at
the polls in November. Any debate has been postponed until Congress reconvenes
after the elections and, undoubtedly, after the war is well under way in both
Syria and Iraq.
This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 20 September 2014, and was republished
with permission.