The Pentagon loves lying about troop levels in its major wars, and that’s been particularly true in Iraq and Syria, where after being called out for underreporting several times they officially decided they were going to stop telling the public troop levels at all.
Maj. Gen. James Jarrard told reporters today that the US has about 4,000 ground troops in Syria, which is nearly 4,000 more troops than they’ve ever admitted to before. This figure apparently wasn’t supposed to be public, as other Pentagon officials were quickly scrambling to walk back that announcement.
Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon claimed to have no idea what the 4,000 figure was meant to represent, but insisted that the official figure for US troops in Syria is just 503. Whether that’s a firm count, or just the usual Pentagon hand-waving number, was unclear.
503 was the maximum number of troops set by President Obama. The US has been pouring troops into Syria all year, however, and President Trump has authorized myriad escalations. There don’t appear to be any good estimates for the actual US presence in Syria, but the 4,000 figure is likely a lot more credible than the 503.
15 thoughts on “US General Says 4,000 American Troops Are in Syria”
There should be zero US troops in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Lybia….according to international law.
The blood trace of US wars since WW 2 equals more and more Nazi Germany.
So we apparently escalated in Syria, we’ve escalated our support for the Saudis in Yemen, we decided to stay in Afghanistan with an unknown escalation, we’re now deeply involved in Africa and another article here says we’re never leaving Iraq. Thank goodness we didn’t elect an interventionist. But wait, Hillary would have been worse so all is well.
Our interventionist ways (war crimes, mind you) have almost nothing to do with who is the president. The Deep State runs the country and Trump is just the latest figurehead to occupy the White House. If he even dared get in the way of the MIC and the CIA… Well, the last president who threatened to do that was JFK. I’m sure the CIA made a point of showing Trump the untouched Zapruder film just this week, in fact.
That still doesn’t make Trump a non interventionist. Now or pre election. My problem is with people believing that he would do any differently IF he could.
Let’s rethink the situation. We are spending trillions of dollars and thousands of service men’s lives in a battle against Islamic extremists so they will not commit acts of terrorism in the United States. Another way: Do not let any potential Islamic terrorists into the United States. However, even with vetting we would let in potential terrorists. Therefore, do not let any people of the Islam faith or people from nations that are predominately Islam into the United States. The political problem is that this solution reeks of prejudice and is not politically correct. So, let’s be fair and treat everyone equally: stop all immigration into the United States.
Or perhaps have zero invasions and interventions BY the USA and zero bases BY the USA anywhere in the world.
As well, the USA with 5% of the world’s population has 25% of the incarcerated in the world, so obviously the USA is already full of criminals, and cannot blame immigrants for all the crime.
What do you and other Americans actually expect if your army is permanently attacking other countries and people?
That they cheer and welcome you?
The islamic countries/cultures are not that kind of victim/opponent of US imperial agressions since decades in the ME who stand by and stay calm.
The Islam was (as the West was and still is) an imperial and expansive culture which has also a self concept of moral superiority (as the West has). If you attack Muslims it is for them an honor to fight and die in wars against the invader to defend their homes, families and their faith.
The US may kill hundred fold more of them as they manage to kill Westernes due to the technological superiority of our militaries, but these people will never back down no matter the price will be.
So the US can only lose these never ending “wars against Terror”.
The only winner is the military-industrial complex. The price is payed by the taypayers and day to day people.
Leave them alone then they will leave you alone. Period.
Or acknowledge that the US has always had open borders and will always have open borders. The choice is open borders and a police state built on pretending they can be “secured,” or open borders without such a police state.
Islamic acts of terrorism in the United States correlate completely with US acts of terrorism in Islamic countries. Perhaps it’s time to find out whether or not stopping US terrorism abroad might not reduce foreign terrorism in the US.
Let’s do both. We can do both. Stop our wars And take steps to minimize immigration.
I don’t have any wars. And I support 100% free, unregulated, and unencumbered immigration, especially since the alternatives are all degrees of turning the US into East Germany.
As I’ve said before, the US strategy is to keep pouring troops into Syria incrementally and secretly until the moment when the US decides to definitively turn on the Syrian government and try to overthrow it. The troops inside Syria with be used to disrupt and attack the Syrian forces as well as the Russian forces if the Russians intervene to prevent this overthrow while the other US assets in the region conduct an air campaign.. It’s what I call the “boil the frog” approach.
Who invited them?
Indeed. The author would do well to consider this question, since — absent an invitation from the Syrian government — the presence of any US military forces in Syria is a blatant violation of the UN Charter’s collective security provisions.
I wonder if I missed something. When did Congress authorize for troops to be deployed to Syria?
Comments are closed.