Someone in the Obama administration has let it be known that the US Embassy in Baghdad will henceforth be reinforced by less than 100 Marines.
(Reuters) – Expanded military support for security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will include fewer than 100 soldiers, a U.S. official said on Sunday.
The enhanced security personnel will include Marines and other soldiers, a U.S. military official said on condition of anonymity, shortly after the Obama administration said it would move some embassy staff out of Baghdad and order the military to bolster security at its diplomatic facilities in the Iraqi capital.
This follows an announcement by president Obama that while he hasn’t decided on any definite effort to stop the al-Qaeda forces advancing on Baghdad, he has already decided that he will not deploy any ground troops.
“We will not be sending U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq,” Obama said, but he and his national security advisers “will be reviewing other options.”
These developments occur as reports say that the “US embassy is preparing to evacuate Baghdad as Tal Afar falls and Iraq masses forces at Samarrah”. However, it is unclear whether the evacuation is total or merely a partial precautionary measure. Some reports clearly suggests that only a skeleton staff will be left in place.
Meanwhile, John Kerry and the Obama White House are flip-flopping, as Kerry and Barry are wont to do, on whether or not the US will team up with Iran, Ed Morrissey writes at Hot Air. His post starts with this…
The US and Iran could team up to legitimize an Iranian military presence in Iraq, Secretary of State John Kerry told Katie Couric earlier today. That’s a far cry from American policy over the past four decades, and a blow to US allies in the region, who have to be wondering just what Washington is thinking.
…And ends with an update featuring a tweet from the Wall Street Journal, which states that “White House says U.S. won’t pursue coordinated military action with Iran in Iraq.” As Ed asks, “Does this White House bother to consult with its Secretary of State, or vice versa?”
What difference, at this point, does it really make, as Kerry’s predecessor once famously said regarding an earlier Middle East debacle by the Obama administration. “The United States, and in consequence the West, has suffered a catastrophic collapse of credibility,” as Richard concludes his post. “Any line that can by hypothetically drawn is at best a wild-ass-guess. For only one person can draw any line of consequence: Barack Hussein Obama. We are witnessing not only a collapse but a capitulation.”
Besides, Kerry has far more important defense issues on his mind these days than merely saving Iraq.
Update: “State Dept. Ignored Warnings of Iranian Efforts to Destabilize Iraq.” Like I said, Kerry’s priorities really aren’t on ground level-related issues.