In comments today on ABC’s “This Week,” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster downplayed the chances of the US sending more ground troops to Syria, saying that it still “remains to be seen” if more troops are needed, but that he doubts the US will have to send any more.
President Trump had appeared to rule out such deployments last week, insisting “we’re not going into Syria,” though of course US forces are already in Syria, and there are proposals still coming in calling for additional US troops to be deployed.
The indications had been that McMaster was leading the push for more troops, however, and had even argued in favor of a deployment of some 50,000 US ground troops to fight in Syria. That McMaster is the one downplaying more troops now may suggest he’s been overruled.
Instead, he insisted that the US will focus on support for “partner forces.” Reports out of Syria suggest that in addition to increased military backing for the Kurdish YPG, the US has also resumed arms shipments to various rebel factions in Idlib Province to fight against the Assad government.
That renewed focus on regime change is the most likely factor to fuel more calls for US ground troops in Syria, as the sense right now is that ISIS is increasingly surrounded, and that the Kurds will ultimately seize the ISIS capital and put them even further on the defensive.
Good.
“…the US has also resumed arms shipments to various rebel factions in Idlib Province to fight against the Assad government…”
Act of war. Putin, please to the right thing and take those terrorists out.
You want him to Nuke Washington?
I said terrorists, not their backers. I have friends and relatives in the DC area.
I suspect that the actual memo read more as a three-part choice in which two were written to be unlikely. The 50,000 number sounds like precluding the choice — don’t do it unless we do it right, which requires too much to do it at all.
A very succinct maybe, if i’ve ever seen one.
No, McMaster is simply lying. He still wants to build up US forces in Syria as part of an “internal incremental invasion” rather than an Iraq-style invasion from outside Syria.
This plan would be the US’ best option to outflank Russia in Syria and enable both the defeat of ISIS and then the ability to turn on and degrade Syria’s military. Russia would be unable to counter a slow and gradual buildup of US forces to the point where the US has 10-20,000 troops INSIDE Syria.
Once that is done, the US will be able to launch an invasion from INSIDE Syria, supported by additional troops from outside and a large-scale cruise missile campaign followed by a large-scale air campaign.
Russia had better find a way to counter this strategy or it will lose Syria.
Russia is not going to “lose Syria”. It’s precisely this type of juvenile, knuckledragging rhetoric that has stupefied Americans into compliance with the march to Armageddon. Morality and real diplomacy, with recognition of sovereign rights and international agreements are concepts alien to Americans. Russia is protecting Syrians from terrorists at their request. That is not a lie, it is the truth. Americans need to stop thinking in amoralistic terms fed to them – and start thinking like reasonable, caring, and patient adults. Is that even possible ?
Good one! Judging by your comment, it seems like this stuff is doing Americans some good. Russia sure the hell isn’t going to lose Syria. And Russia and China aren’t going to lose N.Korea either.
I would suggest that side’s losing has about ended. the Cold war is back and MAD is saving our asses once again.