The White House said Thursday that President Obama won’t consider sending a more substantial U.S. military presence to Iraq or Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, even though the terrorist group’s recent success in taking over more territory in those countries has prompted calls for a change in strategy.
“The president is not going to be in a position where he is going to consider a large-scale military deployment,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “And for those who are calling on a change in strategy, I would encourage them to be specific.”
“I don’t think that they will find either a lot of support on the part of the American people for a large-scale deployment of military resources to essentially re-invade Iraq or invade Syria,” he said.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/boehner-demands-new-islamic-state-strategy-from-obama/article/2564707
The Islamic State has recently had success taking over Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria, which has reignited a debate over whether the U.S. needs to send in a substantial ground force. Earlier in the week, for example, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, called on Obama to submit a new plan for fighting the terrorist group, and said, “We don’t have a strategy.”
But Earnest said bluntly that the U.S. will not be doing the fighting for those countries.
“No matter how difficult this challenge is, this is not something the United States is going to do for the Iraqi government, and we’re certainly not going to do it for Syrian government,” he said.
At the same time, Earnest acknowledged that the forces the U.S. is trying to train in Syria are not quite ready to do this fighting.
“We’ve acknowledged for a year now that our efforts in Syria to build up a ground force that can work closely with the coalition is going to take some time,” he said. “[T]here are limits until we’re able to build up forces on the ground in Syria who can take the fight to [the Islamic State] in their own country, this is going to continue to be a difficult challenge.”
Earnest also defended the administration’s decision to call the fall of both cities a “setback.” When asked if the takeover of Ramadi was more than a simple “setback,” Earnest said, “No, I don’t think it is. I think it is a setback.”
He also said Obama has said the conflict would be characterized by “days of progress, and by periods of setback.” The fall of Palmyra is also a “setback,” he said.
Earnest said the White House is constantly trying to reassess its strategy, but declined to say what more would have to happen in order for it to consider a large land force. He said those assessments are aimed at finding ways to tweak the strategy, which could involve some changes in the number of U.S. assets in the area, but said several times there is no consideration of a radical shift in the policy toward an invasion.
“That aspect of the president’s strategy has not changed,” he said.
From the beginning, the White House has characterized its effort against the Islamic State as one aimed at degrading and then destroying the group. Earnest said Obama has said the “degrade” phase of the operation would last past his presidency.
“Yes, we are in the degrade portion of this operation,” he said. “There’s ample evidence to indicate that we are making progress in degrading [Islamic State] capabilities.”
He indicated that the “destroy” mode would seem to be left to local forces in Iraq and Syria that have yet to develop so far.
