Obama sending US commandos into Syria

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Senior U.S. officials say a small number of U.S. special operations forces will be deployed to northern Syria to work with local ground forces in the fight against Islamic State militants.

The deployment marks the first time U.S. troops will be working openly on the ground in Syria.

U.S. officials say President Barack Obama ordered the deployment of fewer than 50 commandos to help coalition forces coordinate with the local troops.

One official also says the U.S. will be sending additional aircraft, including F-15 fighters and A-10s to the Incirlik air base in Turkey.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article41928345.html

[Botany]

1. And who do we have to thank for ISIS?

Yesterday morning, the president said, “we are systemically destroying the Al-Qaeda network,” adding, “one of America’s most powerful weapons in the war on terror is freedom.” w bush November, 1 2004

[yurbud]

2. and are Persian Gulf allies who give them money and whoever buys their black market oil

[TwilightGardener]

3. You know what, this is Obama's puppy now. We have no reason to have a ground operation in

Syria. I believe Obama at this point about as much as I believed Idiot and Crashcart.

[Botany]

7. President Obama was handed an almost unsolvable problems w/ ......

..... the mess created by w & Cheney's Iraq war.

"And all the stuff we're seeing today -- the rise of ISIS, the disintegration of the state in Iraq, the disintegration of the state in Syria, I think is directly connected to our invasion," said Clarke.

"We destroyed the state. This is what happens when you destroy a state. You have chaos, you have the rise of factions, regional and ethic factions," he continued. "And I think you can look at that decision and say that's the reason hundreds of thousands -- probably a couple of million if you add it all up -- people have been killed."

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/05/richard-clarkes-lesson-iraq-we-destroyed

****************

And yes I have grave doubts too about putting US forces into that bloody mess.

[TwilightGardener]

10. I'm not saying Obama was responsible for ISIS. I don't believe he was.

He IS responsible for what he's choosing to do in Iraq and Syria now.

[geek tragedy]

18. doing nothing is also a choice, and one that should be appraised on its own merits

rather as being portrayed merely as the absence of the bad consequences of doing something

there are considerable downsides to doing nothing.

[TwilightGardener]

20. I don't think we've been "doing nothing". We've been conducting airstrikes

in Syria for over a year, and I believe we've had special forces in Syria for some time, though not sure for what. I'm not sure this is even anything new, but they're PRESENTING it as a new mission. Although I've been supportive of fighting ISIS, I don't trust Obama anymore, sorry.

[geek tragedy]

21. no need to trust, we can think for ourselves nt

[betterdemsonly]

42. Strawman

Funding the Syrian opposition(isis) wasn't doing nothing.

[geek tragedy]

44. it was next to nothing nt

[24601]

59. How can you say it was next to nothing when it produced as many as 5 or 6 fighters?

I don't really have to apply the sarcasm tag on something so intuitively obvious to the casual observer, do I?

[TwilightGardener]

61. It produced about 120 or so fighters, released in two batches.

Only 5 survived various attacks, didn't get killed, captured, or defect, and were still in the field. And yet in the same region of Syria, there are supposedly friendly-to-us Arab anti-ISIS fighters and of course the Kurds. Why didn't we embed our guys with those fighters? Why turn them loose into Syria with minimal support? What was their mission--take on ISIS by themselves? It's thoroughly baffling.

[dixiegrrrrl]

45. and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Libya, and even Yemen. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. And, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, Angola, and other places we've helped.

[Skittles]

60. and because he never held who was responsible accountable

it's all Obama now

[betterdemsonly]

41. He funded them when he opted to fund the Syrian opposition

He is not innocent, and has not recanted his opjective to overthrow Assad. He just supports neocon goals but lied to get the antiwar vote.

[CentralMass]

55. Libya is no picnic either.

Last edited Sat Oct 31, 2015, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

[Darb]

71. Weak.

It is not now and will never be "Obama's puppy". So consider a shopping spree at the clue store.

[restorefreedom]

36. + 1000 and please

photo warning for w and vader pics! i almost hurled my pb sandwich!

[Skittles]

52. Obama let them off the hook

he told us to LOOK FORWARD

[Botany]

53. The economy was in free fall, the GDP was in negative #s ,and we were .....

.... dropping 750,000 jobs a month when the President took office and he had
to work on that as job #1 and so he worked on that rather then try to go
after w & company.

And yes I do think w, Cheney, Rummy, and so on should be in jail for war crimes
in starting and running the Iraq War 2.0.

[Skittles]

54. so we let people who lied their way INTO A WAR off the hook

F*** THAT

they should have been held accountable for the ECONOMY too

[Botany]

56. I am pissed about that too.

We hung some Japanese after WW II for doing what we and others did for
us in our war on terror. Water boarding was one of those "war crimes"
we executed some Japanese for but when we did it in our GWAT (global war
on terror) those bastards got a pass.

But Obama made the call he thought which could achieve the most good and
let 'em go only to have them come back and attack him right afterwards.

BTW I live in Ohio and I saw w/my own eyes and heard w/my own ears
the stealing of the Presidential election in 2004 and it made me crazy for
years thinking when will this story get out and things will be "put right."

<they should have been held accountable for the ECONOMY too> How about
the 12 billion in cash that got shipped to Iraq that just went missing?

skittles

[Skittles]

57. he DIDN'T achieve the "most good"

HE MADE THE WRONG CALL

[Botany]

58. yes and no

peace

[uawchild]

4. US ground troops in Syria? WTF

Are the neocons holding the President hostage or something?

How on earth can this possibly work out well for us -- it can't and won't. Because NOTHING settles a middle eastern country down faster than sending in US ground troops, right?

[Shemp Howard]

23. Don't get so excited!

We're only talking about 50 troops here, all in a support role.

Of course, those 50 might later on need their own base. And that base would require security and logistics personnel. Only a couple of hundred more U.S. troops, at most. And then maybe an infantry battalion also, just to sweep the immediate area. Got to keep the base perimeter secure.

And don't forget a field artillery unit, eventually, to provide immediate counter-fire to any rocket attacks on the base.

Wait a minute. I think I've seen this pattern once before in my life. It was in the early 1960's, I believe. That gentle escalation didn't work out so well, if I can recall.

[uawchild]

40. ah, yes... good points...

Those 50 troops are probably just "advisors". Wheh! I am so relieved.

[dixiegrrrrl]

46. Which is why we did not really "leave" Iraq....or Afghanistan.

Had to leave some troops in each country to "protect" the bases we built.
So we could use the bases to bring democracy bombs to nearby countries.

Wanna talk about the bases and troops we have been pouring into Africa on the down low for the last 12 years????

[betterdemsonly]

43. he was always one of them.

He is just a dishonest neocon. He wanted to overthrow Assad, but no sane liberal would support that because it would mean an isis takeover, so he funded and isis takeover, under the guise of funding the moderate Syrian opposition, than blamed Assad for it. This was done with much encouragement form Hillary and her neocon employees in the State department so it should be hung around her neck.

[yurbud]

5. if this was all really about Isis, we'd freeze accounts of gov'ts who gave the money

That our government doesn't shows that ISIS is just the scarecrow they are shaking to get us to support the overthrow of the Syrian government

[GreatGazoo]

17. +1

Overthrowing Assad while ISIS has a huge presence and the backing of Saudi Arabia seems to guarantee that Syria will fall to Sunni extremists aligned with KSA. From the mythical "moderate rebels" to Russia's response this thing is looking more like another Bay of Pigs debacle.

[yurbud]

65. and it's embarrassing to hear that Russia is bombing the "moderate" rebels when our gov't has

admitted there's only a half dozen of them at best.

[840high]

32. ....x10+

[Paper Roses]

6. Sorry Mr President, you have lost me!

I've been around since WW11, don't really remember that but sure do remember our transgressions into Korea and then to Vietnam.
This action will be the beginning of another Vietnam boondoggle. You will, Mr President, be remembered for this. Not a good legacy.

I am disappointed. You had my support but I am now withdrawing it.

[EX500rider]

16. "our transgressions into Korea"

I assume you mean the UN sponsored force?

The United Nations Security Council recognized this North Korean act as invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire. On 27 June, the Security Council adopted S/RES/83: Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea and decided the formation and dispatch of the UN Forces in Korea. Twenty-one countries of the United Nations eventually contributed to the defense of South Korea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

[Dale Scott]

30. Oh please

The United States has always been the military arm of the UN. Without us they would just be a bunch of cute Blue Helmets parading around aimlessly.

Bush got a UN resolution to go into Iraq too.

[EX500rider]

35. So it's fine if N Korea wants to invade and conquer their neighbor with you?

[hibbing]

8. "More robust presence"

That is the phrase the corporate media will be using along with the white house. As well as a "three pronged approach". And so it begins. The idiot son and his criminal administration with their war of choice has turned the whole region into a cesspool.


Peace

[Purveyor]

9. And by what authority do we have the right to put our troops in a sovereign country without

permission?

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. The fact that we are able to do so certainly calls into question Syria's sovereignty

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

24. Yeah, Putin will be pissed!

[Purveyor]

33. Should and most likely will take it before the failing and basically irrelevant UN. eom

[Francois9]

63. No country has the right to do this.

This is aggressive warfare, the mother of all war crimes.

[Doctor_J]

11. Didn't his predecessor instigate a "surge" in his war, at about the same time in his presidency?

Maybe I'm just having deja vu

[TwilightGardener]

15. Actually, Obama has been even less honest and forthcoming than Bush regarding what he's doing.

They told us we didn't have boots on the ground in combat in Iraq, that was a lie. We only know about it now because someone got killed IN COMBAT. His Secretary of Defense lies repeatedly and no one calls him on it. They told us they were going to train moderate rebels, and then that failed spectacularly, resulting in deaths and capture for those poor handfuls of men who trusted us, and now we have to send in ground troops to Syria to partner with Kurds and "Arabs"? Sounds like we wanted that program to fail, so that we could send in ground troops, doesn't it? Obama almost seemed triumphant that it failed. And who even believes the overall purpose of this new ground presence? Is it to try to push back against Russia, build a new no-fly zone or some other operation, having little to do with ISIS? Who knows anymore?

[bemildred]

12. US to send special forces to Syria as diplomats talk peace

Washington/Vienna (dpa) - The US will send a small contingent of special operations troops to northern Syria to coordinate with local forces against Islamic State militants, a senior US official said Friday, as diplomats gathered in Vienna to seek a political solution to the conflict.

Fewer than 50 special forces will be deployed as part of efforts to bolster the fight against Islamic State following a review of US strategy, the official told dpa.

"We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the official said.

President Barack Obama has also authorized the deployment of A-10 and F-15 aircraft to Incirlik air base in Turkey, will seek to establish a special operations task force with the Iraqi government and will enhance military assistance to Jordan and Lebanon, the official said.

http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/usto-send-special-forces-to-syria-as-diplomats-talk-peace-a-47133532.html

[bemildred]

14. President Obama breaks pledge: U.S. will send ground troops into Syria

Conceding that his more than year long strategy of fighting ISIS in Syria without ground troops is at a stalemate, President Obama is expected to announce that U.S. special forces will begin operating in Syria later today.

As Iranian officials join international talks on a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria for the first time, the U.S. will now send what the White House describes as a small contingent of about 50 ground troops to ramp up the fight against the Islamic militant group, working alongside a rebel group known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.

The ground forces are “consistent with strategy to intensify the battle against ISIS,” a White House senior official told ABC News:

These forces will work along the Syrian border and not on the front lines with the rebel groups. They will provide training, assistance and advise just as U.S. troops are doing in Iraq.

They will not be in combat, they will work with the Syrian Arab Coalition to facilitate airstrikes, but they are not forward air controllers. They will be at the group’s headquarters speeding up coordination of potential airstrikes.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/30/president_obama_breaks_pledge_u_s_will_send_ground_troops_into_syria/

[metalbot]

50. What would a "diplomatic solution" even look like?

Not responding to you, but to the text you are quoting, which references:

"As Iranian officials join international talks on a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria for the first time..."

I'm just trying to imagine what a "diplomatic solution" to ISIS could possibly be. You can cut off their money, but you've still got a bunch of raving fanatics who control territory in Iraq and Syria. I'm not sure what you could offer them in exchange for something that ends violence.

[karynnj]

64. that text is referring to a diplomatic solution to the civil war

In Syria. There are about 20 countries and the UN involved in this. The idea is to get agreement on a process that will include the Syrians having elections and a cease fire.

[Francois9]

69. The old in 'n out.

Thanks, Obama!

[Sunlei]

19. fewer than 50 commandos to help coalition forces coordinate with the local troops

U.S. officials say President Barack Obama ordered the deployment of fewer than 50 commandos to help coalition forces coordinate with the local troops.

[Paper Roses]

22. I do not believe this will end with just 50 troops.

This will be the start of something none of us want. 50 here, 100 there, next thing you know.....Another Vietnam.

[Shemp Howard]

25. I agree with you.

I said the same thing in a roundabout way, post #23.

This could end with only 50 troops (and no escalation) if either: the destination country is at peace, or if there is a war, the war will end very soon.

Neither of those is the case with Syria.

[mwrguy]

28. if 50 is the teeth

then the tail has to be several hundred.

[arcane1]

26. Can we call it war now? n/t

[mwrguy]

27. "I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."

[CentralMass]

29. History would suggest that this will not go well. The Russians are dropping bombs like candy and

this small number of Special Ops are being sent into a very unsafe situation.
It sounds like a dumbass move IMO.

[Duppers]

31. Recommended ONLY for exposure.

This is awful.

[lark]

34. People voted for him because he was anti-war

and Clinton was more war-like. Guess we got fooled in that area too. WTF is he doing sending troops into that quagmire, especially with Russia playing such an active war. Is he trying to heat up the Cold War?????

[restorefreedom]

37. another MIC sellout liar

really regretting voting for this guy. at least mccain was upfront about his intentions.

[WestSeattle2]

38. And history repeats itself

November 1, 1955 — President Eisenhower deploys the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. This marks the official beginning of American involvement in the war as recognized by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.[5]

[restorefreedom]

39. shep smith just gave a stunning rebuke and criticism

of the president, playing a series of quotes where he repeatedly said he would not put ground troops in Syria. He also went hard after Congress saying that after the criticism Hilary has taken because of her iraq vote, that no one in Congress has the guts to take a vote on this and go on the record. Coming from Fox news Channel, I am amazed. Smith is becoming the keith olbermann of Fox news and it's quite amazing.

[PersonNumber503602]

67. While Shep Smith is better than most at Fox, he's still a Fox Newers.

If Obama was the republican's guy, then they would be singing praises over this move and about how it's needed to assert our authority or something.

[restorefreedom]

68. i agree with you about everyone there but shep. during katrina, he was in no

and he was very emotional and ripping mad at w. so he seems to be either a closet liberal, or very able to remove politics from the importance of the news. i think his presence gives undeserved credibility to fox, but at least the viewers get some real news.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. Yay!! More War!! More Glory!! More Billionaires!! Now, if we could just win one.

Maybe Grenada needs saving again...

[arcane1]

51. There's always the mighty Panamanian military to gloriously defeat! n/t

[PSPS]

49. Obama's preparation for his next "peace prize," no doubt.

Whom will we be "advising?" The same Al-nusra (AKA al-Qaeda in Syria) we've been arming?

[Skittles]

62. well isn't that special

[PersonNumber503602]

66. Why Syria? I understand Iraq, but they really shouldn't be in Syria.

That just sounds like it's asking for trouble. I mean, unless they get permission from and work with Assad. Although that's obviously not going to happen since that's counter to the US goals in Syria.

[Francois9]

70. Here's why.

And, as we know, there is plenty more oil in nearby countries.

[ozone_man]

73. It's part of PNAC

and Republican president or Democrat makes little difference. Obama might even get another Nobel Peace prize for his work.
Syria provides, under U.S. control, a pipeline from Qatar to Mediterranean, lessening the dependency of Europe on Russian natural gas.
Another element is to break up Iran - Syria - Hezbollah axis, satisfying the Israelis, and Saudis.
Another aspect seems to be to keep the region in endless turmoil, so we can to wrest control of the oil and gas resources, of all ME countries, hence PNAC.
And we've made our bed with the wahabis of Saudi Arabia, so look the other way as they fuel ISIS, along with Turkey and Qatar. And we make pathetic attempts to get rid of ISIS, because that would conflict with our desire to get rid of Assad and break up the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis.
That's the way I see it.

[Darb]

72. Simple really, Putin said no troops without permission from Assad, Obama said

fuck you.