Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Drudge Report Iraq sequel: Obama security 200 to 1 vs. 430 for 5,000 in Bagdhad

Drudge Report pushes Obama's Baghdad sequel
Drudge Report pushes Obama's Baghdad sequel
Getty Images /Evan Agostini (L)Spencer Platt(UpperR)Cory Lum/Pool (Lower R)

Monday, the Drudge Report pushed President Obama's sequel to Baghdad. The Drudge Report often gives prominence to links to Obama's travel and vacation expenses; much of the cost is allotted for the security of the president. To put the Baghdad troop numbers in perspective, BBC reported in 2009 Obama required over 200 security officials, armed and prepared to defend the president with force, to travel with him to London for the G20 summit.

The number of troops which began deploying on Sunday is very low, maybe less than 275. Using an equal Obama security bubble ratio of 200 to one to keep the 5,000 American personnel in Baghdad safe as Iraq implodes would require 1,000,000 combat troops. Instead, Obama's ratio for troops actually in Iraq is approximately one to eleven.

The troops will be equipped for combat; however, they are under orders not to engage. Obama said that the only purpose of deploying the troops is for the protection of the United States personnel and the Baghdad embassy.

According to the Daily Mail, the Bagdhad embassy is "the largest U.S. diplomatic post in the world," with approximately 5,000 personnel. The Drudge Report banner to the Daily Mail article reads: "Here we go again: Obama sends troops to Baghdad"

From that Drudge Report link, Daily Mail reports that with the 165 troops already in Iraq, Obama's deployment of "up to" 275 more will barely swell the total number to 440 troops. Political opinions range from thinking putting any troops on the ground in Iraq is an Obama flip-flop after he vowed three days ago he would not send troops while others are appalled and of the opinion sending only 275 troops to Baghdad places them in grave danger.

In Canada, Hillary Clinton responded to a question about whether if she were still part of the Obama administration, would she send ground troops. Her answer was, "Absolutely not."

Clinton balked at the use of airstrikes as well. Clinton was pleased Baghdad's security forces had rallied and thought it was a sign that things were better in Baghdad. According to one comment, "The elephant in the interview room was Benghazi." The reader wondered, "Why didn't the interviewer ask Clinton, 'After what happened on your watch in Benghazi, would you evacuate the embassy in Iraq?'"

Within the Iraq story, another irony, is that the Obama administration is in "open discussions with Tehran" about coordinating efforts to stop terrorists from reclaiming Iraq. Only a year ago Obama was "weighing ever-tougher sanctions against Iran's mullahs."

This change in relationship with Iran evokes the quote, "My enemy's enemy is my friend." The preface to the Drudge Report banner which spotlights the irony that troops are returning only three years after Obama pulled troops from Iraq evoke Ronald Reagan in debate with Carter. Reagan said, "There you go again."

Report this ad