Trump may deploy U.S. ground troops in Syria

[KingOrfeo]

Story here.

Donald Trump’s Defence Department may recommend sending combat troops into Syria to fight Islamic State militants, US reports have claimed.

Already a small number of specials forces operate in the war-torn country, but the previous Obama administration had rejected putting soldiers on the ground.

According to CNN although the Pentagon has not yet proposed the deployment to the White House it was under consideration.

"It's possible that you may see conventional forces hit the ground in Syria for some period of time," one defence official.

But -- on whose side will they fight? The notion of the U.S. fighting on Assad's side really sticks in the craw. Trump and Putin are discussing military cooperation in Syria, and Russia backs Assad.

 

[Rightguide]

US ground troops could be deployed anywhere if approved by the CnC.

Fake news.

 

[KingOrfeo]

US ground troops could be deployed anywhere if approved by the CnC.

But will they be fighting to defend Assad's regime? Who wants that?!

 

[Rightguide]

But will they be fighting to defend Assad's regime? Who wants that?!

I have no clue at this point. I guess we'll have to wait for the Obama holdovers to leak it to the enemy through our media. That's what they did for 8 years.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I have no clue at this point.

And why should today be different from any other day?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

But will they be fighting to defend Assad's regime? Who wants that?!

Nobody WANTS that, but by allowing the Obama policy of doing little or nothing to continue, we facilitate the continuation of TWO evils -- Assad AND ISIS. The difference between the two is that Assad has not declared jihad against the United States and is no threat to us militarily or via state-sponsored terrorism.

ISIS is the far greater threat throughout the region and in Europe. Syria is ultimately more manageable through international community pressure, most notably through eventual "deals" negotiated between the United States and Russia.

That's NOT an argument for troops on the ground. It's just an argument that says IF you put troops on the ground in Syria it is probably in out best interest to fight ISIS. At least at first.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Seem to me that just about the only faction in Syria that Americans should want to win is Rojava.

Rojava (IPA: [roʒɑˈvɑ], "the West" in Kurdish) is a de facto autonomous region originating in and consisting of three self-governing cantons in northern Syria,[12] namely Afrin Canton, Jazira Canton and Kobanî Canton, as well as adjacent areas of northern Syria like Shahba region.[13] The region gained its de facto autonomy as part of the ongoing Rojava conflict and the wider Syrian Civil War, establishing and gradually expanding a secular polity[14][15] based on the Democratic Confederalism principles of democratic socialism, gender equality, and sustainability.[3][4][12][16]

On 17 March 2016, its de facto administration self-declared the establishment of a federal system of government as the Federation of Northern Syria–Rojava (Kurdish: Federasyona Bakurê Sûriyê – Rojava‎, Arabic: فدرالية شمال سوريا - روجآڤا‎‎, commonly abbreviated as NSR).[17][18] While entertaining some foreign relations, the NSR is not officially recognized as autonomous by the government of Syria[19][20] or any international state or organization. The protagonists of the NSR consider its constitution a model for a federalized Syria as a whole.[21] The updated December 2016 constitution of the polity uses the name Democratic Federal System of Northern Syria (Kurdish: Sîstema Federaliya Demokratîka Bakûrê Sûriyê‎, Arabic: النظام الاتحادي الديمقراطي لشمال سوريا‎‎).[22][23][24]

Also known as Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎)[25][26] or Syrian Kurdistan,[27][28] Rojava is regarded by Kurdish nationalists as one of the four parts of Kurdistan.[29] However, Rojava is factually and programmatically polyethnic.[1][30] The cantons of Rojava are home to sizable ethnic Kurdish, Arab, Assyrian and Turkmen populations, with smaller communities of ethnic Armenians, Circassians and Chechens.[31][32] This diversity is mirrored in its constitution, society and politics.[33]

It all sounds too good to be true, therefore it probably is.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

'may' is such a strong indictment...






Of course the implied companion to 'may' is 'not.'

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Obama actually put boots back on the ground and they are still there and KO didn't say as much as fucking peep.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

And by the way...


Wasn't Obama's excuse for everything the mess he inherited from Bush?

Look at the mess Obama laid at the feet of THE Orange Don with his premature decision to stick to a campaign promise by declaring a victory that wasn't and bringing all the boots home...


KO stuck by his man. Now that America rejected his woman, all he can do is find fault after nine years of freaking silence unless it was in defense of his team.

 

[about_average]

Nobody WANTS that, but by allowing the Obama policy of doing little or nothing to continue, we facilitate the continuation of TWO evils -- Assad AND ISIS. The difference between the two is that Assad has not declared jihad against the United States and is no threat to us militarily or via state-sponsored terrorism.

ISIS is the far greater threat throughout the region and in Europe. Syria is ultimately more manageable through international community pressure, most notably through eventual "deals" negotiated between the United States and Russia.

That's NOT an argument for troops on the ground. It's just an argument that says IF you put troops on the ground in Syria it is probably in out best interest to fight ISIS. At least at first.

The best laid plans....
Not that we sent troops, but we did help Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. That didn't work out so well in the long term.

 

[Rightguide]

That's NOT an argument for troops on the ground. It's just an argument that says IF you put troops on the ground in Syria it is probably in out best interest to fight ISIS. At least at first.

You're right Colonel. The media have projected a plan into impending action. This is why we're probably not going anywhere for a while in big numbers:

Most Army Brigades, Navy Planes Aren't Combat Ready: Leaders


Military.com | Feb 07, 2017 | by Richard Sisk

"Only three of the Army's 58 Brigade Combat Teams are ready to fight; 53 percent of Navy aircraft can't fly; the Air Force is 723 fighter pilots short; and the Marine Corps needs 3,000 more troops.


Rest here:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...rigades-navy-planes-combat-ready-leaders.html

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're right Colonel. The media have projected a plan into impending action. This is why we're probably not going anywhere for a while in big numbers:

Most Army Brigades, Navy Planes Aren't Combat Ready: Leaders


Military.com | Feb 07, 2017 | by Richard Sisk

"Only three of the Army's 58 Brigade Combat Teams are ready to fight; 53 percent of Navy aircraft can't fly; the Air Force is 723 fighter pilots short; and the Marine Corps needs 3,000 more troops.


Rest here:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...rigades-navy-planes-combat-ready-leaders.html

Well, in Syria, I doubt more than three brigades would be needed.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, in Syria, I doubt more than three brigades would be needed.

The plan, whatever it is drives the number. Not knowing what the objective is makes it hard to estimate numbers. I don't think Mattis will take on a plan in which he cannot prevail with a comfortable margin of existing forces.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The plan, whatever it is drives the number. Not knowing what the objective is makes it hard to estimate numbers.

In Syria it's hard even to imagine what the objective is. Beyond destroying ISIS, what does the victory scenario look like? Presumably it would include bringing an end to Syria's deadlocked civil war, but under what government?

 

[Rightguide]

In Syria it's hard even to imagine what the objective is. Beyond destroying ISIS, what does the victory scenario look like? Presumably it would include bringing an end to Syria's deadlocked civil war, but under what government?

I'm not sure there is a "beyond destroying Isis" being contemplated except for maybe the possibility of carving out a "safe no-fly zone" for refugees in Northern Syria near the Turkish border. Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon have expressed support for a no-fly zone in Syria.

 

[OldJourno]

I think it's important to remember Assad is a "reformer." I seem to recall hearing that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In Syria it's hard even to imagine what the objective is. Beyond destroying ISIS, what does the victory scenario look like? Presumably it would include bringing an end to Syria's deadlocked civil war, but under what government?

Assad's unless you want a war with Russia.

When we led from behind, Russia jumped to the front.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I think it's important to remember Assad is a "reformer." I seem to recall hearing that.

He protected all religious minorities, lest we forget.

Mubarak kept the peace with Israel and Momar changed his ways and worked with us, but they were velly, velly bod mon and had to go, they had to face der Hyuuuuuck!

 

[Rightguide]

I think it's important to remember Assad is a "reformer." I seem to recall hearing that.

Remember Castro was an agrarian reformer.

 

[Mello_SixtyNine]

Hillary would have done the same thing. She's more of a Neo-Con than the Republican Neo-Cons.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You're right Colonel. The media have projected a plan into impending action. This is why we're probably not going anywhere for a while in big numbers:

Most Army Brigades, Navy Planes Aren't Combat Ready: Leaders


Military.com | Feb 07, 2017 | by Richard Sisk

"Only three of the Army's 58 Brigade Combat Teams are ready to fight; 53 percent of Navy aircraft can't fly; the Air Force is 723 fighter pilots short; and the Marine Corps needs 3,000 more troops.


Rest here:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...rigades-navy-planes-combat-ready-leaders.html

Given that the budget for the military is already $600B a year, and the Congress gets tanks the generals do not want and buys jets that can't fly into clouds I think the problem lies within military procurement.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Hillary would have done the same thing. She's more of a Neo-Con than the Republican Neo-Cons.

<kidding>
News flash - she lost the election snowflake - LOL
</kidding>

 

[Rightguide]

Given that the budget for the military is already $600B a year, and the Congress gets tanks the generals do not want and buys jets that can't fly into clouds I think the problem lies within military procurement.

The cost is irrelevant. What's relevant is the national security and the mission demanded of our military. It costs whatever it costs to carry out the mission and bring overwhelming force and superior technology that will prevail against or deter any known enemy force or technology that threatens our national security.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The cost is irrelevant. What's relevant is the national security and the mission demanded of our military. It costs whatever it costs to carry out the mission and bring overwhelming force and superior technology that will prevail against or deter any known enemy force or technology that threatens our national security.

But, since the DoD does get plenty of funding, why is it not better prepared? Why are only three Army brigades combat-ready?