Obama: ‘American Troops Will Not Be Fighting In Iraq Again’
Washington — President Barack Obama announced at a special meeting from the White House that he will not send military aid over the current crisis in Iraq, stating diplomatic efforts between all parties involved were the best option to ease the trail of death and destruction that has rocked the country over the last few weeks. The reasoning behind the President’s decision not to go in was many-fold, from the evidence that jihadists are more likely to leave America and Europe to fight in the Middle East and return to form terrorist cells in those countries when they use strong military force over open-minded, diplomatic talks.
“We have humanitarian interests in preventing bloodshed, we have strategic interests in the stability of the region, we have counter-terrorism interests. All those have to be addressed.”
Obama went on to say that using our technology with those already on the ground is being used to create a perimeter around Baghdad to assure its safety from insurgent attacks. This action, however, “does not foreshadow a larger commitment of troops to actually fight in Iraq. That would not be effective in the meeting of the foreign interests we have.”
Obama also silenced right-wing media who claimed the recent events in Iraq were all his fault, stating that the troop withdrawal date was not signed during his administration, nor was it his choice to pull out the last bits of American military from Iraq.
“We offered a moderate, residual force to help continue to train and advise Iraqi security forces.” The Iraqi government refused that offer.
To help better inform the public, President Obama offered insight into how America sets their troops upon the world map. Before one troop sets foot on foreign soil, agreements of immunity for those troops must be in place. The President used an example of how American troops could be attacked by radicals within a foreign country and would need to respond with force. Without the immunity agreements in place, these soldiers could be taken by that country and tried in their courts. The Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, did not agree to the immunity, which is why troops were withdrawn completely.
Overall, President Obama’s desire for the Middle East appears to be strengthening our allies that border Iraq and Syria to contain the problem, then to offer humanitarian aid within those countries while they weather through the conflict. It is the hopes of the Obama administration that through this conflict a stronger and more stable agreement can be made that will help to restore peace in the region.
When asked about the slowness of his administration when it came to the Syrian crisis, Obama spoke of how he weighed the options of involvement, seeking the best course of action that would keep the loss of lives at a minimum.
“The question has never been whether we thought this was a serious problem,” the President said. “The question has always been is there the capacity of moderate opposition on the ground to absorb and counteract extremists that might have been pouring in, as well as the Assad regime, supported by Iran and Russia, that out-manned them and was ruthless.”
Obama continued his argument by stating that while his administration does support the people of Syria, much of their strength comes from farmers and teachers who have taken up arms, and they are facing down a battle-hardened regime with support from “external actors who have a lot at stake.” Obama attested that losses will have to be accrued as these people are trained and prepared for the long road ahead.
When it comes to the Middle East and the surrounding countries as a whole, Obama believes that a more effective way to deal with the problem is to get every country at risk involved in a stronger, combined effort to fight against terrorism. When one country finds reason to harbor terrorists in their homeland, usually for protection against another terrorist organization or political entity, terrorists will continue to flourish.
“There is going to be a long-term problem in this region,” Obama stated, “in which we have to build and partner with countries that are committed to our interests, our values; and at the same time we have immediate problems with terrorist organizations that may be advancing.”
He went on to say that rather than bouncing around trying to find terrorists in pockets around the area, building a working network within all countries in the region to expose and bring down these groups would yield far better results. In this respect, the Obama administration has begun refocusing the materials used in Afghanistan to help build a coalition within the region strong enough to take down terrorism at its roots.
Pres. Obama: No ground troops to Iraq. US will not “support one Iraqi sect at the expense of another.” But may send 300 military advisers.
— CBSDenver (@CBSDenver) June 19, 2014
Obama says he’ll send up to 300 advisors to Iraq, but no combat troops http://t.co/WbeOiX52vR
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) June 19, 2014
Back to Iraq? No Troops, But Obama Ponders ‘Other Options’ http://t.co/dnU5W0Yatu via @reason247
— #pUNkIsAStateOfMind (@punkboyinsf) June 17, 2014
