In an interview today with Der Spiegel, top Obama aide Ben Rhodes spurned the notion of an Afghanistan-style ground invasion and open-ended occupation of ISIS territory in Syria, saying the deployment of ground troops there would not be sustainable.
The comments came in response to a question about whether Friday’s Paris attacks would fuel a massive round of intervention in the same way that the 9/11 attacks did in Afghanistan. Rhodes insisted the international community could not “take ownership” of Syria.
The interview also discussed the possibility of NATO using an Article 5 call for collective defense as a way to bring the entire alliance into the ISIS war after the Paris attacks. Rhodes responded that this was entirely up to France to decide if they wanted to go that route.
Rhodes also confirmed previous Obama Administration authorization of a small number of ground troops to go into Syria, insisting that they aren’t going to engage in combat, and that they aren’t a “long term” answer for the ISIS war, though he didn’t make it particularly clear what the troops are expected to accomplish.
So you have a plan, right? You have a plan. You're in a war, here, and you have a plan, right? On how you plan to win it? What? What's that? You don't have a plan?
Okay, we'll go with that.
Since a guerilla war is unwinnable, nobody can have a plan to "win" it. Politicians never want to admit that, so they claim to have a "plan" in the hope that nobody will notice that the war is unwinnable.
Frankly, it's like a script from a Lucas movie.
If ISIS had a central reactor, maybe we could hit that?
They talk about sending troops to Syria like it's a trip to the grocery store. No mention of what the Syrian people, government, and her allies would think of such a move.
That's because they (the Imperialists) don't care what the Syrian people want or need.
The Syrian people haven't had a say in what happens in their country since Assad's father seized power in a coup. If Assad was a Ukrainian, his rule would be denounced as an "illegitimate coup government". As for the "allies", i.e. Uncle Vlad, if he has any say in what happens in Syria, then Syria isn't sovereign.
"…deployment of ground troops there would not be sustainable."
That doesn't mean they won't do it anyway, of course. The invasion of Iraq by Bushco was not "sustainable" – that's why they couched the invasion in terms of the Iraqis gladly paying for 80% of the cost from their oil revenues – but they did it regardless. The Imperialists only care about the execution of the "plan" – how it gets paid for or who they get to actually do the fighting for them is irrelevant (to them).
Here again we see a blogger who is scared silly of the idea that the US WON'T send in ground forces.
Very wise. I keep saying it, but the lesson of history is that guerilla wars are unwinnable. If Putin wants to send in ground forces, and he may well be forced to do so for domestic political reasons, more fool he.
Those who want a ground invasion in Syria by the US obviously don't care about the American people. We did it in Iraq and Afghanistan (among way too many other places), and where did it get us? Does anyone seriously believe this country is better off after the W. Bush and Obama administrations? I know people try to act like they are opposite in many ways and thus very different overall, but they really are quite similar, and whomever gets elected next November will likely be a member of the same cabal.
"…deployment of ground troops there would not be sustainable."
It's a lie. Just plain vanilla bullshït. Haven't ground troops in Afghanistan been sustainable for the last fourteen years?
"…deployment of ground troops there would not be sustainable."
Translation: Here's excuse #1. After a while, and as needed, Obama's spokesliar will announce excuses #2, #3, #4, etc, right up until Nov of 2016, when he'll hand off the Neocon Grand Plan — Full Spectrum Global Clusterfück — to the next Punk-in-Chief of the United States of Israel. Empty your wallet America, and bend over for Zion.
> It's a lie. Just plain vanilla bullshït. Haven't ground troops in Afghanistan been sustainable for the last fourteen years?
Just barely. It's not going well, there are only 7000 people or so for a country as big as France, and I hear military gear and morale has now been seriously abraded. Is there still a few trillion behind a couch? Plus, there is stuff going on in Yemen, Afghanistan, NATO countries and God-knows-where-else soon. Plus, two words: "Pacific Pivot". Busy times.