fb-pixelUS general won’t rule out US ground forces in Iraq - The Boston Globe Skip to main content

US general won’t rule out US ground forces in Iraq

Says stopping ISIS may take more than airstrikes

Tighe Berry, at the Senate hearing, protested President Obama’s push for a military response to the Islamic State.JIM LO SCALZO/EPA

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s top military adviser said Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States forces in ground operations against Islamic extremists in Iraq if airstrikes prove insufficient, opening the door to a riskier, more expansive American combat role than the president has publicly outlined.

General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that while he was confident an American-led coalition would defeat the Islamic State, he would not foreclose the possibility of asking Obama to send US troops to fight the militants on the ground — something Obama has ruled out.

Advertisement



“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” Dempsey said. “But if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the United States, then I, of course, would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of US military ground forces.”

Dempsey acknowledged this would run counter to the president’s policy, but said, “He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”

The general’s statement lays bare the challenge the president will face in selling an expanded military campaign to a war-weary American public. Obama, seeking to allay fears of another Iraq war, has promised that US ground troops will not be involved in fighting the Islamic State, also known by the acronyms ISIS. In a sign of the administration’s mixed message, the president pointedly did not call it a war, while his advisers later did.

But the realities of a prolonged campaign, Dempsey said, could make such a hands-off approach untenable, particularly if the battle against the militants moves into densely-populated cities where airstrikes are less effective and the chances of civilian casualties are much higher. His candid testimony, hours before a divided House of Representatives began debating whether or not to approve Obama’s request for authority to arm the Syrian rebels, drew expressions of concern from antiwar groups and could further complicate the political dynamic for the president.

Advertisement



The White House insisted on Tuesday that Obama was not shifting his policy and that Dempsey was not out of synch with his commander in chief.

“It’s the responsibility of the president’s military advisers to plan and consider all the wide range of contingencies,” the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, said to reporters. “It’s also the responsibility of the commander in chief to set out a clear policy.”

On Wednesday, Obama is scheduled to get a briefing from his military commanders at the Pentagon’s Central Command headquarters in Tampa. The rare visit is described by White House officials as part of his effort to mobilize public support for the mission. But it is also calculated to soothe tensions with the military over who is in charge of the operation after Obama named retired General John R. Allen to be his special envoy to the coalition of countries fighting the Islamic State. Allen will be based at the State Department.

Already, Obama’s policy has been tested by his commanders. Dempsey said General Lloyd J. Austin III, who oversees Central Command, had recommended putting special operations troops on the ground to direct airstrikes during a recent campaign by Iraqi and Kurdish forces to retake the Mosul Dam from the extremist militants.

Advertisement



Obama rejected that recommendation, and Dempsey said the United States used technology — a drone known as a Rover — to compensate for not having its own advisers on the ground. The US advisers remained in the Kurdish capital of Irbil.

The challenge will come, Dempsey said, when Iraqi and Kurdish forces try to drive the militants out of densely populated urban areas like Mosul. In those cases, Dempsey said, he might recommend deploying special operations troops to provide “close combat advising,” essentially working alongside Iraqi commanders in the field and helping them direct their troops to targets.

While the Americans would not fire weapons themselves, military experts said there was little practical distinction between the role Dempsey described at the hearing and actual combat.

“We’ve already got ground forces introduced and they are performing combat missions,” Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army general who helped train the Iraqi security forces and is now a senior adviser to the National Security Network, said Tuesday. “I applaud the general for his candor. That will help the president and the debate greatly “

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel testified along with Dempsey, but their appearance appeared to do little to dispel concerns on Capitol Hill. They said the campaign would include the training and equipping of 5,000 Syrian fighters, the involvement of more than 40 coalition nations, including 30 that have pledged military support.

But members of the Armed Services Committee sounded far from convinced that the plan would succeed. Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, said he doubted 5,000 Syrian fighters, who could not be trained for months, would be able to fight off more than 30,000 Islamic State combatants. “To many of us that seems like an inadequate response,” he said.

Advertisement



Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who votes with Democrats, said he was concerned about what appeared to be a “Whac-A-Mole” approach to the threat.

A House vote on funds to train and arm the Syrian opposition is possible Wednesday.