U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama

On September 10, 2014, 13 days after he had admitted not having a strategy on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, aka ISIS or IS), President Barack Obama finally spelled out the U.S. policy toward ISIL. (Watch and read his speech here.)


Note: Levant consists of the island of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and southern Turkey.


Vowing the U.S. will increase its support to the Iraqi government fighting ISIL, Obama proclaimed an additional 475 servicemembers will be sent to Iraq. But he emphasized that “these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.

As reported by The Washington Post, Obama had ignored the advice of the military on how to deal with ISIL. 

Gen. Lloyd Austin III

Gen. Lloyd Austin III

Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, had recommended sending a modest contingent of American troops, principally Special Operations forces, to advise and assist Iraqi army units in fighting the militants. Austin’s recommendation was conveyed to the White House by Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But the advice was cast aside in favor of options that did not involve U.S. ground forces in a front-line role. (See “Reaction to Obama’s ISIL counterterrorism policy speech“.)

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff

On September 16, Gen. Dempsey contradicted what his commander in chief had said six days ago. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Dempsey laid out several examples of how U.S. troops could take part in combat operations against ISIL, including:

  • “if the Iraqi security forces and [Kurdish Peshmerga] were at some point ready to retake Mosul”.
  • if a U.S. pilot is shot down over Iraq.
  • “if there are threats to the United States”.
Former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie

Former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie

On September 18, 2014, Former Navy SEAL Carl Higbie told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that Obama is experiencing “a global failure of his foreign policy.”

Higbie had served two tours in Iraq — in 2007 and 2009 — and is the author of Battle on the Homefront: A Navy SEAL’s Mission to Save the American Dream, 2012.

Higbie was critical of Obama sending 3,000 troops to Africa “to combat Ebola,” instead of sending troops “to combat an actual enemy [ISIL] that’s threatening America.”

When asked what the military “really thinks” of their commander in chief, Higbie says, “Most of the troops, probably over 90% do not support the president.

On how to combat ISIL if he were president, Higbie says, “It’s gonna take a massive message. I would say to these people, ‘Look, you chop two Americans’ heads off, I’m coming to get you.’ That’s what it’s going to take — massive bombs, surge of troops, unfortunately, and really send a message home. They need to be in fear of us.”

Higbie also says he believes “our troops will go over there [Iraq]. They want to fight this fight. They joined the military to fight a war, to combat the problem, to combat something that’s threatening our homeland. These troops will go over there. They will fight with all their heart, and we’re the most lethal fighting force the world has ever known and history has ever known. Let us go over there, take away the rules of engagement. I talked about it in my book Battle On the Homefront. Let us fight this battle. Take our handcuffs off.”

USMC Gen. James Mattis (ret.)

USMC Gen. James Mattis (ret.)

The Washington Post reports that on September 18, 2014, retired U.S. Marine Corps general James Mattis, who had led U.S. forces in the Middle East as head of the U.S. Central Command, told the House Intelligence Committee that it is unwise and “creates problems” for the United States (i.e., Barack Obama) to say in advance that the U.S. won’t send combat troops.

Mattis said, “Specifically, if this threat to our nation is determined to be as significant as I believe it is, we may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American ‘boots on the ground’.” Citing Jordan and the United Arab Emirates as examples, Mattis also said the United States has allies in the Middle East who will likely send troops to assist in Iraq if “we put ourselves out there and lead.”

See also:


11 responses to “U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama

  1. Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
    Active and retired U.S. military officers are openly disagreeing with Obama’s policy toward the Islamic State (ISIL) jihadists, including none other than the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That means the commander in chief of the world’s most powerful military does not have the respect and support of the troops. The implications are troubling, not the least of which is that this will be exploited by America’s enemies, unless they are terminally stupid.


  2. The Obamination was created and put into place by Goldman Sachs and a few other agencies to benefit themselves, not for the nation’s benefit.

    He and his hangers-on want to believe they’ve been accepted by the ruling elites, but the day is nearing when they’ll be cast aside and the next puppet installed. How many recall Bush 43’s ignominious and hastened Farewell Address ceremony in the rush to install the Obamination?


  3. Odierno isn’t happy with him either. Better watch out or Odierno could be out of a job as well.


  4. Comment by CODA’s Jay Gaskill, via email:

    New presidents get a honeymoon period of about 6 months. This period of silence (SP#1) was only about 90 days for the patriots with guts. When the generals started speaking out, dissidents were purged. That was Silent Period #2.

    SP#2 is over because almost every military member has lost fear of POTUS 2012, as he has faded from “lame duck” status to living road kill.

    Even Hillary – ever pragmatic – is no longer afraid to criticize O’Bambi through authorized surrogates.


  5. Most of the administration, from Joe Biden on down, have learned not to take anything Obama says seriously. He will say whatever he thinks will help him and his party the most in the November elections. He has no experience with nor any education in foreign or military policy. He has a deep-seated dislike and distrust of the military, which shares these sentiments about him.

    Note the differences in the reception that GW Bush and Obama get at military functions. GWB could stand on the deck of a carrier in a flight suit, carry a turkey into a mess hall in Iraq or mingle with the troops at almost any military base. The troops loved him and knew he was one of their own. Obama walks onto a stage, delivers a well-rehearsed speech and exits stage left to polite applause. The generals know they have to give lip service to the latest political “word for the day.” But they will, on occasion, tell the truth to Congress and others.


  6. Pingback: U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama

  7. Pingback: U.S. military does not support Commander-In-Chief Barack Obama - Cronyism,Corruption and Lies in D.C.

  8. Pingback: This is how CIC Obama salutes our Marines -

  9. Thank you StMA for this wonderful post. The Military know that this king has no respect for them and that he does not support them.


  10. Pingback: GOP Congressmen urge U.S. military generals to resign en masse

  11. Pingback: Bill Kristol declares there will be a 3rd-party candidate against Trump | Fellowship of the Minds

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s