http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A507C60A-D829-4D0F-9001-5C99EEB35E92 Martin Dempsey: Ground troops possible
By: Jeremy Herb
September 16, 2014 10:05 AM EDT
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel emphasized on Tuesday the United States is at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, warning Congress that the fight will “not be an easy or a brief effort.”
Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey defended the strategy announced last week by President Barack Obama. Dempsey said the approach “won’t look like a shock and awe campaign” but will be persistent and sustained.
But if it doesn’t succeed, the top U.S. military officer said he would not rule out advising Obama to use U.S. ground forces.
“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward,” Dempsey said. “I believe that will prove true. If it fails to be true and there are threats to the U.S., then of course, I would go back to the president and make the recommendation that may include the use of U.S. military ground forces.”
Dempsey also said that, if necessary, he would recommend that U.S. advisers accompany Iraqis as they attack ISIL targets.
Hagel said the campaign against the Islamic State extremists is necessary to prevent ISIL from eventually becoming a direct threat to the U.S.
“Although the intelligence community has not yet detected specific plotting against the U.S. homeland, ISIL has global aspirations,” Hagel added. “If left unchecked, ISIL will directly threaten our homeland and our allies.”
With Congress poised to vote this week on legislation allowing the administration to arm and equip moderate Syrian rebel groups, Hagel and Dempsey faced pointed questions from lawmakers about the U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria as well as its plans to arm the rebels.
Several lawmakers said they support Obama’s war plans. Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said he believes the president already has the authority to conduct the limited military campaign outlined last week, but broader congressional support would “make it easier for the president to build an international coalition, including the visible support of Arab countries.”
The participation of Arab states in the campaign against ISIL, he said, is critical to the international coalition.
“If Western countries act in Iraq and Syria without visible participation and leadership of Arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of the violent extremists that we are interested in dominating in Iraq and Syria,” Levin said in his opening statement.
But the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, said Obama’s strategy fell short by failing to acknowledge the threat ISIL poses to U.S. national security.
“His claim that ‘America is safer’ may support his political narrative — but it’s not true,” Inhofe said. “Secretary Hagel, I appreciate your honesty when you described ISIL on Aug. 21 as ‘an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it’s in Iraq or anywhere else.’ I agree with you.”
Inhofe also said the president’s strategy was detached from the reality on the ground, arguing that it will “take an army to beat an army.”
“I’m not advocating for an army division or combat elements on the ground,” Inhofe said. “But it is foolhardy for the Obama administration to tie its hands and so firmly rule out the possibility of air controllers and special operators on the ground to direct airstrikes and advise fighting forces. It sends the wrong message to our troops to the enemy and to partners.”
While Obama has said he believes he has the authority to act, the president is also calling for Congress to pass an authority allowing the U.S. to arm and train moderate Syrian rebel groups; the House is expected to vote on the matter Wednesday.
Congress could take up a broader authorization for the use of force against ISIL after the midterm elections, and the proposed House measure to authorize training and equipping the Syrian rebels is set to expire in December.
Obama has said he would expand the air campaign against the Islamic militants to target them in Iraq and Syria, while insisting that U.S. combat troops would not be deployed.
But lawmakers have raised concerns about the U.S. strategy against ISIL. Defense hawks have said Obama’s strategy is inadequate and questioned whether the U.S. can destroy ISIL without using ground troops — or, at the very least, special operations forces on the front lines.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the Obama administration had a “fundamental misunderstanding” of the Free Syrian Army, asking Dempsey how the Syrian rebel groups would fight ISIL and not Syrian President Bashar Assad’s troops. Dempsey said the U.S. has an “ISIL-first” strategy.
Lawmakers skeptical of military action have also expressed concern about U.S. plans to arm moderate Syrian rebels, particularly worried about who will receive the weapons and whether they might fall into enemy hands.
In his opening statement, Hagel acknowledged there’s risk involved with arming the rebels. But he said the Pentagon will undertake a rigorous vetting program for the forces that receive training and weapons.
“There will always be risk in a program like this, but we believe that risk is justified by the imperative of destroying ISIL, and the necessity of having capable partners on the ground in Syria,” he said.
Hagel also made clear that U.S. military force alone will not be enough to defeat ISIL, arguing that the U.S. needs a broad international coalition as well as the use of military, diplomatic and economic powers. It’s critical, he said, that the Iraqi people unite in their opposition to ISIL.
“This is ultimately their fight,” Hagel said.
Tuesday’s hearing, the first on the U.S. campaign against ISIL since Obama authorized airstrikes in Iraq last month, was interrupted repeatedly by anti-war protesters.
Protesters stood up and chanted “No more war” at the start of both Hagel and Dempsey’s opening statements, as well as when McCain began speaking. As they were escorted out by Capitol police, Levin told one protester, “You’re acting very war-like yourself.”
