US Will Send 400 More Troops To Iraq Bringing Total To 3,500; Open New Military Base

Tyler Durden's picture

As reported yesterday, in the latest escalation of the "war on ISIS", Obama - winner of the Nobel peace prize for pulling US soldiers out of Iraq - was said to be sending even more US soldiers, pardon military advisors, to Iraq to halt the inexplicable, constant expansion of ISIS, now deep in Syrian territory. Earlier today, this was confirmed when Reuters reported that, as expected, the US will announce on Wednesday plans for a new military base in Iraq's Anbar province and the deployment of around 400 additional U.S. trainers to help Iraqi forces in the fight against Islamic State, citing an unnamed U.S. official.

From Reuters:

The plan would expand the 3,100-strong U.S. contingent of trainers and advisers in Iraq and would mark an adjustment in strategy for President Barack Obama, who is facing mounting criticism for not being tougher in combating Islamic State.


U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, expressed hope that even a modestly strengthened U.S. presence could help Iraqi forces plan and carry out a counter-attack to retake Anbar's capital Ramadi, which insurgents seized last month.


The expected troop announcement was unlikely to silence Obama's critics, who say the modest contingent of U.S. forces is far from enough to turn the tide of battle.

In an administration in which the aptly named US Freedom Act does precisely the opposite of what its name suggests, it was good to see that the semantic games continue: as Reuters further notes, "Obama was expected to stick to his stance against sending U.S. troops into combat or even close to the front lines, officials said." And yet, he is doing just that.

So Obama is not sending troops, even as there are about to be 3,500 US troops, pardon, military trainers and advisors in Iraq. Is anyone truly fooled by this sad attempt at verbal sleight of hand?

But while soldiers are better known as "advisors", a base is still a base, and as such the US is about to open its 5th military base in Iraq. According to AP, "the extra U.S. training site will be at al-Taqqadum, a desert air base that was a U.S. military hub during the 2003-2011 war. Establishing the training camp will require between 400 and 500 U.S. troops, including trainers, logisticians and security personnel, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because a final administration decision had not been announced. 

The U.S. already is training Iraqi troops at four sites — two in the vicinity of Baghdad, one at al-Asad air base in Anbar province and one near Irbil in northern Iraq.

A base which puts not only Syria, but Damascus within easy reach once the Assad regime is overthrown, an outcome which now seems to be just a matter of time.

What is the official explanation for the latest troop, pardon "advisor" surge?

Dempsey said there will be no radical change to the U.S. approach in Iraq. Rather, it is a recognition that the effort has either been too slow or has allowed setbacks where "certain units have not stood and fought." He did not mention the Ramadi rout specifically, but Dempsey previously has said the Iraqis drove out of the city on their own.


 "Are there ways to give them more confidence?" This, he said, is among the questions Obama wanted Dempsey and others to answer.

In reality what is really taking place is what we explained yesterday:

it appears the US doesn’t know whether it wants to stick with what was probably the original plan (i.e. wait until ISIS overruns Assad and then storm in with 10,000 marines to ‘liberate’ the country before installing a more ‘agreeable’ leader after some farce of an election) or speed up the process by claiming that Assad is in fact working with ISIS and using the imaginary unholy alliance as an excuse to invade now. 


If Washington tends to go with Plan A, it would certainly make sense why Obama told leaders at the G-7 that this US doesn’t “yet have a complete strategy because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis.” The strategy probably goes something like this: 1) bide time until Assad’s army is decimated, 2) issue burn notice on black-flag waving former CIA asset, 3) announce Syria’s liberation, 4) install puppet government, 5) send “you’re welcome” note to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.


The only thing “incomplete” here is securing public support for ground troops. Lately, the US has begun to float a few “boots on the ground” trial balloons, with some hawks suggesting that forward “spotters” may be necessary in order to make the aerial assault on ISIS more ‘effective’ and today, we get a few more feelers from The White House, as the President is reportedly considering sending additional troops to Iraq “for training.

We can now scratch out the "reportedly" because slowly but surely, the endgame vis-a-vis Syria, and that long overdue Qatari natgas pipeline to Europe, is taking place.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Quinvarius's picture

In his effort to look like he is not a liar, he is going to half step it instead.  Great.  Lets do a half assed job.  Either we are serious about our allies or not.  Do the job quickly or stop.  Read some Sun Tsu clownbama.  End it.  Don't keep fighting it badly.

VinceFostersGhost's picture



Surge : ON


We're back bitchez!

Headbanger's picture

Can we please try to NOT leave a bunch of hardware there for the next batch of bad guys !?

Took Red Pill's picture

That's intentional. Has Obama kept ANY of his campaign promises?

Divine Wind's picture




John Kerry is alive and tweeting photos from his hospital room:

two hoots's picture

Obama's legacy is the concern.  Keep it going until he is gone then blame the next guy.   Sure the Pentagon (civilians and desk warriors) is trying to save face also as they have pumped the President and themselves up with superior macho crap.  And now Iran has a serious footprint there and for sure things are more complicated than before....death by politics, it should be criminal.

Chief KnocAHoma's picture


Chief KnocAHoma's picture


ACP's picture

"Goodbye darlin', hello Samarrah..."

"I will not send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Iraqi boys should be doing for themselves."

-Barack Hussein Obama

(well, at least he might as well have said that)

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

~"US Will Send 400 More Troops To Iraq Bringing Total To 3,500; Open New Military Base"~

What does "victory" look like in this scenario, Mr. President?

boogerbently's picture

????Wasn't he elected on the "Bring our young men and women home" platform ?

Normalcy Bias's picture

Read some of the tweets from the brain dead brown nosers for a quick laugh.

sodbuster's picture

Same here- they are the "truly stupid"

EhKnowKneeMass's picture

Wait... what? He is alive? I thought he was almost dead based on articles posted in the comments section of ZH.

WTF? EU Times should get the Novel Price for Journaljism.

NoDebt's picture

Yes, actually.  He promised to "fundamentally transform" the United States, and he has.  I don't even recognize the place any more.  He also promised to crush the coal industry, and he has.  Those are the only two that I'm aware of.

NoVa's picture

Student loan originations went from private lenders to Dept Education.

EPA rules over clean air

He also promised to improve race relations - 

2 out of 3 ain't bad.

boogerbently's picture

Well, the transparency part.

We can plainly see what a moron he is.

HonkyShogun's picture
HonkyShogun (not verified) Quinvarius Jun 10, 2015 7:13 AM

Funfact:: Eisenhower originally warned of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. I wonder why it was shortened.

Quinvarius's picture

Who knows how long it was before he came to the version that included congress?  I am pretty sure the original probably had banking in it.

philipat's picture

Their boots will not touch the ground. We left Iraq as a stable and independent Nation...............

Ghordius's picture

Mission Accomplished: Eternal War

philipat's picture

So why does The EU blindly follow this clown into war with Russia over Ukraine? And why does Holland obfuscate over the MH017 "Incident"? Why can't the EU strike a truly independent foreign policy?

Ghordius's picture

first, the current ceasefire, as fragile it is, was brokered by Germany and France, directly with Russia and Ukraine

second, Juncker just recently ventilated a different option to the NATO: "Juncker's Phantom Army", a EU-only "Fast Reaction Group"

so don't come over with this "blindly follow". the previous "clown" said "you are with us or against us", remember?

the EU as such has nearly nothing to do with all this, except the role of the ass, a "Fuck the EU" ass, according to Nuland

the UK, the Scandinavians, the Balts and Poland have a completely different idea of a foreign policy towards Russia as France, Germany and Italy

philipat's picture

First the "Present Ceasfire" has been deliberately broken by Kiev and the Neocons in The US directing them after The US coup in Ukraine. The sanctions on Russia have caused no harm to The US economy but have severely harmed the economies of EU Nations, all because of a pretence. So why does the EU go along with this, especially when war with Russia will destroy Europe but leave The US unscathed?

Second, I notice you did not respond regarding MH017 and the Dutch obfuscation regarding the report of the findings, totally unlike any other Air Accident Investigation?

Face it, The EU is a Vassal of The US, for reasons that I don't fully understand. But you might wish to illuminate?

Ghordius's picture

how am I supposed to even attempt to recap 70 years of diplomacy in one short comment? I don't know what the Dutch are obfuscating. Do you?

Vassalage is a concept that contains a "military alliance" part, particularly when on the defensive. Now, I ask you: is Russia... being all quiet and peaceful? Or is it "rattling the saber a bit"?

Russia is the 800-pound gorilla in the room next to NATO. Even if we would say Uncle Sam "goodbye, thanks", it would still be there, wouldn't it?

and again, note that we are deeply divided on how to even describe Russia's stance

philipat's picture

So you don't think that Russia has legitimate "Interests" in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? I don't agree that Russia is The Big Gorilla which is actaully The US. I believe that Russia genuinly wishes to make peace with The EU and trade quietly. Russia had NO interest in re-colonising Eastern Europe (The Baltic States, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic etc.). That is all just more scate tactics from the War Party.

The US Empire has self-destroyed and Europe needs to recognise that the future in to The East. Or not, at it's peril...

Ghordius's picture

eh, I heard Russians giving completely different noises about Russians outside of the Russian borders, particularly in regard to two of the Balts

we are talking here about two big gorillas an a bunch of small and medium-sized apes, here

philipat's picture

No, actually we are talking here about Common sense....

Ghordius's picture

where every and each european nation has a different view of what is common sense, regarding Russia

in short, here we all agree that both gorillas are thumping their chests

look, jokes besides, we do not like a lot about the situation

but your POV, up to now, was not terribly detailed, was it? the devil is in the detail, as often

take this thread, for example: the article is about Iraq. who was against the invasion of Iraq?

the same one european nation that since then is the butt of endless American jokes

philipat's picture

Juncker also, famously, said "When it gets difficult you have to lie". So much for Juncker.

And as for an "EU Army" you surely can't be serious can you? Do you understand the implications of your stupidity?

Ghordius's picture

so much for a guy that was reelected, afterwards. and what part of the threat of a EU-Army did you not understand?

tell me, what would the implications be, after you were somehow asking for a united european response to both Russia and the US?

I thought you were taunting a bit of "You are Vassals of the US"? That would be the opposite of that, wouldn't it?

philipat's picture

Excuse me  but WHO elected Juncker? The man who created a Tax Haven in his domain and now represents an EU that wishes to crackdown on such abuses? Clear as daylight?

philipat's picture

Sorry but it's time for Supper here in Bali so I will not be enjoying your heavenly company further tonight. You MUST be a diplomat because you are excellent at avoiding all the relevant questions.

As an Ambassador friend of mine once asked of me. "What is the difference betweem a Camel and a Diplomat"? Answer: A Camel can work for weeks without drinking......

Ghordius's picture

are you pulling my leg?

first: I don't even want an elected president of the commission. I want him appointed, which gives that post way less power and legitimacy

second: he was appointed by the Council. which is nothing else then every damn Prime Minister we have (in his case, with the exception of Cameron), i.e the govs of the EU countries

third: he was confirmed by the elected EU Parliament, together with his whole commission

it will be interesting, though, to see if that same parliament will follow up with him about the whole tax haven thing. we'll see

philipat's picture

Excuse me for reverting but, to quote you, "Juncker was REelected". I rest my case. Good night.

philipat's picture

"I don't know what the Dutch are obfuscating. Do you?"

No, but I do have a pretty good idea based on the evidence available on the internet. Don't you ever use your "Common sense" or is propoganda an all-consuming agenda in "Diplomacy"?

Ghordius's picture

propaganda, specifically the study of propaganda throughout the ages, is a hobby of mine, yes

having said that... I am highly distrustful of anything on the internet. I prefer to base my opinions on things I witnessed myself, in person

so no, I do not know what the Dutch know or not. but I know in which "camp" they are regarding Russia, and it's the more skeptical one

Ghordius's picture

I was mentioning when he was reelected as MP in Parliament in Luxembourg

You misunderstood that for his appointment, later, at the EU Commission. good night

Chief KnocAHoma's picture

Sure... I get it.. the West is evil... Putin an angel... That's why all those eastern European nations run to Russia for alliance...

Oh wait... they aren't... they are running to the West. Why? Because no one knows you like your neighbor does, and Russia as a neighbor is like the white trash meth head that lets his Rotweiller shit in your yard then comes back at night to steal your kid's bike.

farflungstar's picture

Don't forget these tiny Eastern European countries were part of the USSR for decades, but rather than be independent, they need "protection" as though Russia has been fucking with them non-stop since 1991. Eh whatever, everytime TPTB start the war propaganda, there's always those willing to buy it.

monkeyboy's picture

A new base?


Moar like a fucking franchise! One territory at a time.

Jumbotron's picture

** ALERT **

Watch out ZeroHedge commenters.  The DOJ could be coming for you.

timeless21's picture

Give him another Nobel Prize, please.

VinceFostersGhost's picture



I've got a couple I'm not using.

onewayticket2's picture

do UGG boots count as "boots on the ground"

Budnacho's picture