WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military officer raised the possibility that U.S. troops could become involved in ground attacks against the Islamic State, despite repeated pledges to the contrary from President Barack Obama.
In testimony Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sketched out scenarios in which U.S. Special Forces might need to embed with Iraqi or Kurdish troops engaged in direct combat with Islamic State fighters.
Under questioning from lawmakers, Dempsey acknowledged that Obama has vowed not to send U.S. ground combat forces back into Iraq, less than three years after the president fulfilled a campaign promise to extricate the military from a long, costly and unpopular war there.
But the general revealed that U.S. commanders have already sought permission, at least once, to deploy small teams of U.S. advisers into battle with Iraqi troops. Dempsey also suggested that, while Obama has held firm, he might be persuaded to change his mind.
“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific (Islamic State) targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said later that Obama “will not deploy ground troops in a combat role into Iraq or Syria,” he said.
The uncertainty of exactly what role U.S. troops might play in Iraq and Syria comes as Congress prepares to vote on Obama’s request for approval to train and equip about 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State.
The U.S. carried out five airstrikes Tuesday — two northwest of Irbil and three southwest of Baghdad.
The House resolution, expected to come to a vote Wednesday, explicitly says it does not support U.S. forces on the ground. The resolution is likely to be approved on a bipartisan basis and be included in a broader government funding bill that will make it to Obama’s desk by the end of the week, lawmakers said.
The question of ground forces, however, will probably become a central focus of a legislative debate about war powers that is expected to begin after the Nov. 4 elections.
Since June, Obama has ordered the deployment of 1,600 U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to bolster the country’s faltering army and stop the Islamic State’s advance.
Obama is scheduled to meet with Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday at the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla. Last week, Obama ordered an expansion of airstrikes, adding that it was time to “go on offense” against the Islamic State.
The debate about whether to send U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq — and possibly into Syria — is sensitive politically but in some ways a matter of semantics.
Air Force and Navy pilots already are firing missiles and dropping bombs on Islamic State fighters in Iraq. And although the 1,600 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq have not engaged in firefights with the Islamic State, they are armed and authorized to defend themselves.
But the issue also cuts to the heart of Obama’s military strategy for fighting the Islamic State — and whether U.S. forces should take a leading and visible role or leave the fighting to Iraqi and Kurdish troops, as well as proxy forces in Syria.
Dempsey said the Obama administration’s plan to train and equip 5,000 Syrian rebels would take time — up to five months to establish the program and as long as a year to recruit, vet and train the fighters. Much of the training is expected to take place in Saudi Arabia.
Lawmakers questioned how the Pentagon would ensure that weapons provided to the Syrian rebels do not end up in the hands of the Islamic State or other jihadist fighters.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pressed Dempsey and Hagel on whether the U.S. military would intervene in Syria to aid the rebels if they were pinned down by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The two Pentagon leaders replied that the primary purpose of training the rebels was to help them fight the Islamic State, not Assad.
Hagel told lawmakers that “we are at war” with the Islamic State and warned that “this will not be an easy or brief effort.”
Some lawmakers urged the Pentagon and White House to act more aggressively. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said it was “foolhardy” for Obama to rule out ground troops to advise Iraqi forces in combat and help call in U.S. airstrikes.
