Troops not an option says Obama

Defense Secretary Could Consider Recommendation For More Ground Troops In Iraq

[…But Obama could not]
Hunter Walker | Business Insider

In his interview with CNN, Hagel said he did not “foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent.”

“If we get to any other variation of recommendations from General Dempsey, we will deal with it, but we are not there yet,” said Hagel.

At the G20 Summit, Obama would not completely rule out the possibility of using combat troops to fight ISIS. However, he suggested it would require a rather extreme turn of events.

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-may-consider-recommendation-for-iraq-ground-troops-2014-11#ixzz3JLnrfV00

 
Only if ISIS were to get hold of a nuclear weapon, would Obama send ground [combat] troops into Iraq. This is a war of ideology —  ISIS’ verses Obama’s. He not only took troops off the table but he took the ‘threat of troops’ off the table.

He can use executive power to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, and stop deportations but he cannot use it to deploy troops in Iraq. He also has no problem threatening unilateral action here for any reason, but cannot threaten a cult of evil ravaging across the Middle East.

On the other hand, he will not take action to prevent Iraq from building a nuclear weapon. Why would IS need a nuclear weapon with Obama in the White House? He’s following the same formula on Iran: not only taking action off the table but taking the ‘threat of action’ off the table.

RightRing | Bullright