Discussion for article #242350
This will go well.
2 Likes
Isn’t this sort of acknowledging a situation after the fact? We know there are SpecOp forces in the region because they were part of the rescue mission reported last week. I always assumed that they never left after we withdrew the last of our ground troops.
3 Likes
(head in hands)
We learn, but only slowly and painfully.
This is what ISIS has bragged about and so wanted because it fits their twisted prophesy about the town of Dabiq, Syria. Dabiq is also the name they gave to their on-line magazine. They are looking for an end-times level battle there.
3 Likes
President Obama is expected to announce plans Friday to deploy a small number of troops to serve in an advisory role in Syria, administration and congressional sources told Reuters.
and away we gooooo
Defense Secretary Ash Carter had said earlier this week in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee the Pentagon would be ramping up attacks on ISIS, including with “direct action on the ground” in Iraq and Syria.
…
Obama has repeatedly said American troops in the region would not be directly engaged in combat.
Whether by reality or by pressure from Lindsey Graham, one of those statements will be changing in the future.
2 Likes
OK - I’m sort of confused as to what’s going on. Can someone clarify what things are happening because it sounds to me as though several things are happening some of which are contradictory.
The US is sending spec ops into Syria to combat ISIS. Our troops are going to support the “Syrian rebels.” (In quotes because I don’t understand who these rebels are fighting for or against.
The Russians are sending their Air Force to support the Assad regime from falling and to protect Russian interests in the region.
The Kurds are fighting ISIS but I’ve also heard that they are fighting against the Assad regime.
What are we doing there again?
1 Like
I have mixed feelings about this. Is it mission creep? Yes, probably so, but it’s hard to tell without more specific information. On the other hand, with Putin’s dangerously aggressive foreign policy, do we need to start doing some line drawing in order to reflect this new “Post Cold War” reality? I reluctantly think we do. I don’t much like this new reality, but I don’t think we can afford to ignore it, because the more we ignore it, today, the more likely I think Putin will take our position not as strategic forbearance, but as strategic weakness. And I think we misread the American electorate if we think that their disgust over Iraq means that they think Putin should be allowed to do as he pleases. If we don’t come up with a policy - other than old fashion isolationism - the Republicans will.
1 Like
Forward air controllers and a few A-10’s intended to give Kerry leverage in Vienna.
1 Like
Sticking our nose into a hornet’s nest.
2 Likes
Sometimes you have to put boots on the ground to avoid having to put more boots on the ground. I don’t like it either, but I have always thought President Obama’s position was unreasonable and untenable, especially after the Russians stepped in. Yes, we are back to playing The Great Game. But since that is the only game in town, the best we can to is play smart.
1 Like
forever wars… enabled by a gutless congress that has thoroughly abdicted one of its most important roles.
just wait until one or more of these special ops forces are kidnapped/sold off to isis/isil.
1 Like
I disagree. When Pres. Obama tried to get more involved in Syria, back in 2013, after it was widely believed that it was Assad (or his brother) ordered the gassing of his own people, the American electorate was still not on board with getting involved in what was perceived to be a civil war.
2 Likes
It’s clear that the only thing that qualifies as “combat” nowadays is that picture of American tanks rolling across the Iraqi desert. There will be fighting in Iraq and Syria, there will be US Troops involved in the fighting, and some of them are going to die. But it’s totally not “combat.” I hoped Obama would not buy into the mealy-mouthed avoidance of what is actually going on. I continue to hope that we will be told of defined, measurable goals that our forces will be tasked to achieve. Instead of just, “We’ll stay as long as we need to accomplish the mission (which we have left completely undefined).”
I’m OK with applying US military power against ISIS or against Assad or as a counter to Russian actions in the region. But FFS we have to know what we are fighting to achieve, and have some way to measure our progress.
2 Likes
We are testing weapons. Syria has become a live-action target-rich hunting ground that the great powers can experiment on with all kinds of neat technology.
2 Likes
And I’m sure that Putin will be extra careful to avoid possible US positions when doing those pro-Assad airstrikes.
I’m sorry, but I could not disagree more. Even assuming that there needs to be some “line-drawing”, Syria strikes me as the worst possible venue for some Putin-smacking. A multi-sided civil war? - Where we don’t have any identifiable ally, just a mixed bag of poorly-known enemies? - And where the Russians are already heavily engaged in supporting one side? How on earth are we drawing a line here? Looks more like we just didn’t want to be left out of a big neighborhood brawl.
Russia - a weak country with a failing economy - has thrown itself into a tar pit. And you seem to think our only options are jumping in along side them, or isolationism. So, in your view, diplomacy is useless, or just another word for doing nothing? God help us.
1 Like
This is a handful of special forces and a few A-10’s. This is not throwing ourselves into the tar pit.
1 Like
You’re right, although I wouldn’t say most of the country understands the details of the Syrian war, or Syria itself. To many Americans, the Middle East is just a bunch of sand. If you asked them to draw a picture of it, that’s what you’d get. Sand. Maybe some camels.
So they are tired of war, but just in a generic sense. Not in the sense that they know why we should or should not get involved in Syria.
Even in the article, it still says we’re at war with/in Iraq. We’re not. There are troops there. But we have had troops in Germany since the 1940s. We’re not still at war with them. We have troops all over the world. These ones will just be in more danger than the ones in Europe.
2 Likes
Basically, we are just publicly acknowledging the situation on the ground, that is, that we are using Special Ops forces to aid the Kurds in Northern Syria. They have been there for awhile, coordinating our air attacks against ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. The recent raid on the prison that resulted in an American death was another example of this support, but since it was in Iraq, everything was “fine”.
My guess is the missions will continue to be targeted at ISIS, and not against Assad’s forces…most of that fighting is happening in western Syria.
3 Likes