During a speech at the Defense One Summit in which he repeatedly insisted that the US troops heading to Syria won’t have a “combat mission,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes conceded that the troops will be going out on raids against ISIS forces, during which they’ll engage in combat.
This only adds to the confusion surrounding the mission, in which 30-50 US ground troops are to be sent to Syria and embedded with some force in the Hasakeh Province, presumably the Kurdish YPG under the guise of the “Democratic Forces.”
On Friday, after the announcement of tyhe deployment, officials were feverishly insisting it would be totally “non-combat” in Syria, and suggested the troops would stay at a “quasi-headquarters” instead of going out on missions themselves, keeping the operation purely advisory.
This narrative was ditched almost immediately, however, and Rhodes says now that they’ll be going out on raids involving combat sometimes, but that the troops wouldn’t be on raids more often than not, meaning the combat is not going to be “the norm.”
This suggestion that more than half of the time the ground troops won’t be engaged in combat and subsequently it’s a “non-combat mission” is another dramatic revisionist shift for the administration, after ruling out “boots on the ground” at all, and repeatedly insisting there would never be a US ground presence inside Syria.
Just wait until we get a president Carson. What a clueless administration that would be.
Isn't there anyone in the WH with a vision and leadership to set things straight? And what on earth are they telling the troops? "We'll send you down there, but not to fight. Oh wait, yes, you'll fight. Actually, you won't fight and you will fight…at the same time."
I don't think anyone in Washington is capable of
stopping this doomsday train to WW111.
Probably not. Like Hitler before him and, indeed, Napoleon before that, Putin has disturbed the balance of power in the world. Sooner or later, the disturber takes one step too far and the whole world gangs up on the him and destroys him. They then try to restore the status quo ante, but they never really succeed. A new balance of power is created and lasts until another disturber comes along. There thus has to be a war to create a new balance of power and Putin's destruction is an essential part of that. Napoleon's destgruction made Britain the dominant power. Hitler's destruction made the US the dominant power. Putin's destruction, when it comes, will probably make China the dominant power.
I think you mean the US establishment, not Putin.
Isn't the strategy supposed to involve 'plausible deniability'? The Iraqi and Afghan tactic was to let 'contractors' do the raiding. If they got into trouble, the cavalry could come to the rescue and claim they were attacked while picking up kitchenware or delivering diapers. If they created a little mayhem and killed the wrong people then they became those 'unknown forces' who do all the mistakes.
How many American combat troops will be in Iraq/Syria a week after ISIS captures and beheads an American solider?
Probably thousands!
I suppose the answer is whether or not these non-combat soldiers are drawing combat pay.
Does anyone remember a little while back when Americans rose up in vehement protest and "stopped" the war against Syria? How about remembering exactly how sly the step-up in combat was in Viet Nam?
Israel wants Assad out, so guess what?
This is the Vietnam War redux. The only difference is the American people won't be reading about daily GI casualties since the MSM (main stream media) will be 'covering' the conflict from the comfort of their network studios and not the battlefield.
The parallels with Vietnam are obvious but without the use of unwilling draftees, I doubt if anyone will much care.
Barrach Hussien Obama put US soldiers in harms way just to protect Isis. Sponsoring terror is one thing but providing US soldiers as human shields for terrorist is a new record. The president should be tried for sponsoring terror and war crimes in the UN.