Dempsey says the approach will be persistent and sustained. | John Shinkle/POLITICO Dempsey: Ground troops possible

The nation’s top military officer said Tuesday he would advise President Barack Obama to use U.S. ground troops against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant if the current strategy is unsuccessful.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel appeared on Capitol Hill to defend the strategy laid out last week, which calls for airstrikes and assisting Iraqi troops and Syrian rebels on the ground.


While Dempsey said he backs the president’s approach, he could recommend deploying U.S. combat troops or having U.S. military advisers accompany Iraqis as they attack ISIL targets.

( Also on POLITICO: The challenges facing Obama's coalition)

“My view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward,” Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “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.”

Even though Obama has so far ruled out deploying ground troops, Dempsey said the president had instructed him to “come back to him on a case-by-case basis.”

After the hearing, the committee’s chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) downplayed Dempsey’s comments, telling reporters the general was not suggesting ground troops were necessary.

“Every military leader is going to say if there’s a change in circumstances, he’s going to be open to a different recommendation,” Levin said. “That doesn’t mean he’s suggesting they may be needed.”

( Also on POLITICO: John Boehner on ISIL: 'We've got to do more')

Later, Tuesday evening, the Pentagon issued a statement on Dempsey’s testimony, saying “his comments speak for themselves.” But his spokesman, Col. Ed Thomas, emphasized the general “doesn’t believe there is a military requirement for our advisers to accompany Iraqi forces into combat.”

Thomas went on: “As he said in testimony, ‘If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president.’ An example the chairman gave was Joint Terminal Air Controllers calling in airstrikes for Iraqi forces.

“The context of this discussion was focused on how our forces advise the Iraqis and was not a discussion of employing U.S. ground combat units in Iraq.”

For his part, Hagel emphasized at Tuesday’s hearing the United States is at war with the Islamic State, warning Congress the fight will “not be an easy or a brief effort.”

( Also on POLITICO: Durbin pans House GOP's Syria plan)

The current strategy, Dempsey said, “won’t look like a shock-and-awe campaign” but will be persistent and sustained.

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 senators about the U.S. strategy in Iraq and Syria as well as its plans to arm the rebels.

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.”

( Also on POLITICO: Chuck Hagel on ISIL: Will not be 'easy')

Levin 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. “Sec. 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 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 approve authority allowing the U.S. to arm and train moderate Syrian rebel groups. And the House is expected to vote on the issue 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.

The president has said he would expand the air campaign against the Islamic extremists to target them in Iraq and Syria, while insisting that U.S. combat troops would not be deployed.

But some lawmakers have raised concerns about the broader U.S. strategy against ISIL. Defense hawks have said the plan 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 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. And Dempsey said the U.S. has an “ISIL-first” strategy.

Senators skeptical of military action also expressed concern about U.S. plans to arm moderate Syrian rebels, particularly over who will receive the weapons and whether they might fall into enemy hands.

“That training and weapons probably will be used against us at some point in the future,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).

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,” he said. “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.”

Dempsey said he believes Iraq has an adequately sized force to defeat ISIL, but the lack of a coherent government in Syria is more problematic because it creates an environment ripe for groups like ISIL.

Military planners, he said, have estimated 12,000 troops would be necessary to secure the Syrian side of the Iraq-Syria border; the Pentagon estimates the train-and-equip authority would allow the U.S. to train roughly 5,000 Syrian rebels in the first year.

Hagel also made clear that military force alone will not be enough to defeat ISIL, arguing 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.

They stood up in the hearing room and chanted “No more war” at the start of the opening statements by both Hagel and Dempsey, 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.”