On Friday, June 13, President Obama held a press conference where he stated that “we will not be sending US troops back into combat in Iraq”. The President must have a very short memory, or perhaps he doesn’t think sending troops into a war zone is considered “combat”, because only a few days later the President ordered 275 troops to be deployed to Iraq, albeit for supposed “non-combat” purposes. But sending troops into a combat zone, fully armed and ready to fight, claiming they’re for non-combat roles is a big stretch of the truth if not an outright lie.

Remember, ending the occupation of Iraq was one of Obama’s main talking points as he ran for the presidency, rightfully pointing out the disaster that the war had become and the lies that got it started in the first place. Now the President is sending combat troops into Iraq, perpetuating a lie that these troops will not be fighting, only “advising”.

Obama’s words have not lined up with his actions:

Here is Obama’s statement on US combat troops not going to Iraq made on June 13th:



In a letter to Congress on Monday, the President ordered an additional 300 troops: “This force is deploying for the purpose of protecting U.S. citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat,”. Along with the troops, the US is is also sending a heavy shipment of war machines; including helicopters and armed drones.

This is in sharp contrast to the President’s prior statements on the situation in Iraq. Just to sum up the lies:

On June 13th, the President stated that ““we will not be sending US troops back into combat in Iraq” On June 16th, three days later, Obama told Congress he was sending 275 troops to Iraq “provide support and security for U.S. personnel”. This is in addition to the 300 troops that were already stationed at the US Embassy for security. On Monday, June 30th, Obama announced that 300 troops “equipped for combat” were now being sent to Iraq.

This brings US troop totals up to nearly 1000 now on the ground in Iraq.

Add to that number the little talked about presence of military contracted ‘security’, or mercenaries (think Blackwater) that are in the country. According to the government’s own numbers, “In Iraq, as of March 2011, there were 9,207 private security contractor personnel working for DOD”. Little is known about the number of US government funded mercenaries still currently on the ground, but reports surfaced that ISIS rebels had surrounded up to 500 US military contractors which were being evacuated by Iraqi forces, reinforcing the argument that thousands of contractors remain in the country. That means there could be up to 10,000 or more US funded armed forces in Iraq at the moment.

Many in the news media claim that the reason Iraq has deteriorated so much is because the US prematurely pulled out it’s forces, leaving the country’s military in disarray. This is far from the truth. The reason for the hostile situation is exactly the opposite of what’s being said, it’s the continued presence of US meddling, contractors and influence that is causing the unrest. It is the US’ support of a repressive government that has led to this unrest. Only months ago the US was training and funding ISIS rebels and their allies in their fight against Assad in Syria, only for the training and arms to be turned against the Iraqi government, and subsequently, US assets.

What we have in Iraq is the latest in a long line of arrogant foreign policy blunders, costing the lives of thousands of innocent people and the looting of the US economy, all in the name of ‘national security’. The government cannot get it’s own house in order, how in the world can they think that they can fix the Middle East?

Obama has made common sense threats to hold off any military moves to aid the Iraqi government unless political concessions were made, this has also proven to be an empty threat if not an outright lie. According to a report from Reuters,

“Sunnis and Kurds walked out of the first session of Iraq’s new parliament on Tuesday after Shi’ites failed to name a prime minister to replace Nuri al-Maliki, dimming any prospect of an early national unity government to save Iraq from collapse.”

Despite these developments, arms and troops continue to flow to Iraq’s oligarch government from the US and its unlikely partners in the conflict, Russia and Iran.

Perhaps President Obama should take his own advise and work to build a more inclusive government at home before he seeks to spread these ideas via Hellfire missiles from armed Predator drones in the Middle East. US military intervention in Iraq hasn’t worked for 30 years, why would it work now?

Meanwhile, Obama has also asked for an addition $500 million to send to ISIS aligned Syrian rebels to aid in the fight against Assad. How much of that will be used against our own interest?

This article was published by Live Free Live Natural