For months and, indeed, years, president Obama has told us that the USA would have no combat troops in Iraq or Syria. If you've been awake during the last two years, you have surely heard that Obama was dead set against having "boots on the ground" in those two countries. That line persisted for a while until Obama decided that America had to send troops to the region. At first, those troops were said to be adding to embassy security in Baghdad, but also that they would have no role in the fighting with ISIS. After a while, Obama sent more troops but still said that they would not be engaged in combat operations. Then more troops were sent, but Obama assured us that these were just advisors who would have no combat role. (Obama, of course, neglected to acknowledge that the troops receiving the advice from these advisors were engaged in combat.) Then Obama sent troops to Syria but they were to be special operators, not combat troops. Then more special operators were sent to Syria to fight ISIS, but not in combat according to Obama. There's more, but eventually we got to the point where we had thousands and thousands of troops in Iraq and Syria fighting ISIS. But guess what has not changed: the White House still says that US forces are not engaged in combat with ISIS.
Today, one of those troops not engaged in combat died in a fire fight with ISIS in Northern Iraq along the front line on the outskirts of Mosul. The man was a Navy Seal who lost his life when he took part in combat operations with the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in whose unit the seal was embedded. Hopefully, this hero's family will get all the death benefits to which survivors of combat casualties are entitled. It would be wrong for Obama to try to perpetuate his lies about American combat forces in Iraq and Syria by denying benefits earned by the family of this US hero as a result of his terrible sacrifice. Before you snort at the idea that Obama would do such a thing, you need to know that other American troops killed previously by ISIS in Iraq were denied combat casualty status.
Why does America's strategy regarding ISIS have to be based upon a lie? These brave soldiers are putting everything on the line for us; they deserve every honor we can give them. And why is it that Obama thinks it appropriate to send US soldiers into battle with very little support. We could crush ISIS easily by using our full might. Why are we allowing soldiers to die because we are not using the necessary force that would end the fight?
Today, one of those troops not engaged in combat died in a fire fight with ISIS in Northern Iraq along the front line on the outskirts of Mosul. The man was a Navy Seal who lost his life when he took part in combat operations with the Kurdish Peshmerga forces in whose unit the seal was embedded. Hopefully, this hero's family will get all the death benefits to which survivors of combat casualties are entitled. It would be wrong for Obama to try to perpetuate his lies about American combat forces in Iraq and Syria by denying benefits earned by the family of this US hero as a result of his terrible sacrifice. Before you snort at the idea that Obama would do such a thing, you need to know that other American troops killed previously by ISIS in Iraq were denied combat casualty status.
Why does America's strategy regarding ISIS have to be based upon a lie? These brave soldiers are putting everything on the line for us; they deserve every honor we can give them. And why is it that Obama thinks it appropriate to send US soldiers into battle with very little support. We could crush ISIS easily by using our full might. Why are we allowing soldiers to die because we are not using the necessary force that would end the fight?
