Obama's New Challenge: Explaining How US Soldier Killed In Iraq On The Battlefield, If We Are Not In Combat There?.

[link to www.abc.net.au]

Obama has said over and over "no ground troops in Iraq", but our Special Forces just assisted the Kurdish Peshmerga in a rescue of 70 Iraqi ISIS hostages.

I am so proud of our military for helping save 70 lives, but we lost a serviceman in battle with ISIS. God bless and keep him always. However, I believe our forces did the right thing.

Obama must now explain the difference between "military assistance" and actual "combat". In my opinion there is no difference, and I wish they would quit confusing the American people.

FROM LINK LESS THAN 50%:
"At the end of the day there are 70 people whose lives were saved as a result of this," said Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook.

"US forces always have the right to defend themselves and in this instance they also have the ability to protect partner forces as well and protect against the loss of innocent civilian life," he said.

But questions are now being asked about the scope of the US mission in Iraq and how "assistance" differs from "combat" if a US soldier in a support role can be killed by enemy forces on the front line.

White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz struggled for words when asked if he would not deny that this was an American that was killed in a combat role, ultimately saying: "I know that some of the language here has very specific consequences."