This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/world/middleeast/isis-airstrikes-united-states-coalition.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
U.S. General to Seek Combat Troops if Airstrikes Can’t Stop ISIS U.S. General to Seek Combat Troops if Airstrikes Can’t Stop ISIS
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States combat forces against Islamic extremists in specific operations if the current strategy of airstrikes was not successful, raising the possibility of the kind of escalation that President Obama has flatly ruled out.WASHINGTON — Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Tuesday that he would recommend deploying United States combat forces against Islamic extremists in specific operations if the current strategy of airstrikes was not successful, raising the possibility of the kind of escalation that President Obama has flatly ruled out.
General Dempsey said that the ground forces would likely be Special Operations commands who could call in airstrikes from the ground.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said that while he was confident in the ability of the coalition of American, European and Middle Eastern governments to stop the Islamic State, he could not completely close the door to eventually asking Mr. Obama to commit ground troops to fight the group, known as ISIS or ISIL.In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he said that while he was confident in the ability of the coalition of American, European and Middle Eastern governments to stop the Islamic State, he could not completely close the door to eventually asking Mr. Obama to commit ground troops to fight the group, known as ISIS or ISIL.
“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” he 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 U.S. military ground forces.”“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. I believe that will prove true,” he 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 U.S. military ground forces.”
Gen. Dempsey acknowledged the awkward position he was in. His remarks put him at odds with the president, who has repeatedly insisted that no American ground troops would engage in the fight to thwart ISIS. Any future commitment of American personnel on the ground could put Mr. Obama in a difficult position, as he has repeatedly insisted that no American troops would engage in the battlefield, and Gen. Dempsey sought to explain the apparent contradiction.
“His stated policy is that we will not have U.S. forces in ground combat,” General Dempsey said, adding, “He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”“His stated policy is that we will not have U.S. forces in ground combat,” General Dempsey said, adding, “He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”
In his speech last week announcing the expanded campaign against Islamic State, Mr. Obama said the military advisers he was sending to Iraq would help Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence, and equipment. But he emphatically ruled out front-line fighting.
“These American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq,” he said.
But as General Dempsey made it clear, the reality of the battle might make such a hands-off approach insufficient. When Iraqi or Kurdish forces are trying to dislodge militants from urban areas like Mosul, airstrikes are less effective because they can cause civilian casualties.
In those cases, the general said, he might recommend to the president that the United States send Special Operations troops to provide what he called “close combat advising,” essentially working alongside Iraqi commanders in the field and helping them direct troops to targets.
In fact, General Dempsey said the commander of the military’s Central Command, Gen. Lloyd Austin, had recommended deploying American spotters for airstrikes for the complex campaign to retake the Mosul Dam from Islamic State. Mr. Obama, however, rejected the proposal.
General Dempsey and the secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, were on Capitol Hill on Tuesday to provide up-to-date information on the administration’s plan for confronting the militant group. They said the plan 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, and 1,600 American military personnel who will assist.
But members of the committee sounded far from convinced that the plan would succeed. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he doubted that 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,” Mr. McCain said.
Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who votes with Democrats, said he was concerned about what appeared to be a “whack-a-mole” approach.
Mr. Hagel and General Dempsey took pains to portray the military campaign as a broad coalition-led fight.
“This is ultimately their fight,” Mr. Hagel said, referring to the Middle Eastern countries that are most immediately threatened by the militant group.
They also stressed that this campaign would be nothing like the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“This won’t look like a ‘shock-and-awe campaign’ because that’s not how ISIL is organized,” General Dempsey said.
While the two men attempted to play down the scope of the American military’s involvement, General Dempsey did acknowledge the open-ended and unpredictable nature of the fight ahead.
“Truly there is no military solution to ISIL,” he said, adding that it could be defeated only with a more comprehensive approach that includes diplomacy. “That may be a tough pill to swallow. But there is no military solution.”