'Some may see President Obama's decision to deploy an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq in support of the anti-ISIL campaign as an early outcome of the heavier than expected setbacks for the Democrats in the November 4th mid term elections. It is certainly true that, with Senator John McCain's assumption of the leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Republicans will set a much more hawkish tone in Washington. However, our understanding of the decision is that, as we have foreshadowed, it emerged from rapidly increasing unease in the Pentagon, notably from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey, that Obama's resistance to ground troops and reliance on air power risked a serious deterioration in the situation on the ground. For the time being, the role of the new troops will be to intensify the training of the Iraqi National Army and the Kurdish Pesh Merga. They will complement the already significant deployment of US Special Forces and Intelligence Officers. Pentagon strategists have told us privately that they highly doubt that this training role will be sufficient to achieve Obama's announced goal of "degrading and ultimately defeating ISIL". The debate about the eventual deployment of US forces in a combat role is thus underway. The new tone of hawkishness also extends to Russia where concerns about President Putin's intentions following the elections in Eastern Ukraine continue to rise. Controversy over assurances allegedly given by Obama in his letter to the Iranian Supreme Leader is rising among both parties in key sections of the Senate and House (See Israeli infested sections!). This will additionally constrain his freedom of maneuver to reach an agreement on the nuclear issue in time for the November 24th deadline...'
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
'Israeli infested sections!'
Posted by G, M, Z, or B at 11:25 AM