• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Admits US Troops in Syria Will Go on Combat Raids

anatta

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,712
Reaction score
10,546
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
senior White House official on Monday left the door open for U.S. troops deploying to Syria to conduct raids. Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, said at the Defense One Summit 2015 that raids would not be the troops' "principle" function.

"The norm is not going out in raids," he said, but added, "I'm obviously not going to rule anything out."
Rhodes repeated several times that the U.S. troops deploying to Syria will not have a combat "mission."
White House official won't rule out raids with Syrian partners | TheHill
 
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.”
White House Admits US Troops in Syria Will Go on Combat Raids -- News from Antiwar.com
 
I don't think we have a clue what our policy is, but we can't say "combat troops" because that's long been an Obama meme..

Clearly going on raids is 'combat' except when it's politically inconvenient to say so. :3oops:
 
annata said:
I don't think we have a clue what our policy is, but we can't say "combat troops" because that's long been an Obama meme..

Clearly going on raids is 'combat' except when it's politically inconvenient to say so. :3oops:
Click to expand...

Obama sought UN permission via a UNSCR for the use of force and was denied it all three times. What about NO is hard for people to understand. This is why I get so disgusted listening to people criticise Russia, China or Iran when in the pursuit of "US interests" we do exactly the same thing whenever expedient.
 
Trevor Noah did a great bit on this last night.
 
Nobel peace prize... meh.
 
I think I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well.

Either the powers that be are too stupid to know it or they sincerely believe that Americans are to stupid to know it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I think I've seen this movie before and it doesn't end well.

Either the powers that be are too stupid to know it or they sincerely believe that Americans are to stupid to know it.
Click to expand...

We have all seen this movie, on repeat. All we end up doing is creating tomorrow's problem.
 
OrphanSlug said:
We have all seen this movie, on repeat. All we end up doing is creating tomorrow's problem.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

1. The U.S. is directly involved in the assassination of a foreign head of state or is directly involved in the removal of a foreign head of state.

2. The nation of the assassinated or toppled foreign leader implodes. Social unrest and general discord soon follows.

3. Armed factions become involved in growing conflict.

4. The U.S. provides arms and money to whichever faction it has decided to back. Actually the U.S. has likely covertly created one faction even before the conflict began.

5. The U.S. becomes involved often by sending advisers and/or trainers who "will not participate in combat ops."

6. The U.S. becomes more involved when advising and training fail. Bombing begins, if it hasn't already started.

7. U.S. commits ground troops and materiel.

8. Quagmire begins.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Bingo!

1. The U.S. is directly involved in the assassination of a foreign head of state or is directly involved in the removal of a foreign head of state.

2. The nation of the assassinated or toppled foreign leader implodes. Social unrest and general discord soon follows.

3. Armed factions become involved in growing conflict.

4. The U.S. provides arms and money to whichever faction it has decided to back. Actually the U.S. has likely covertly created one faction even before the conflict began.

5. The U.S. becomes involved often by sending advisers and/or trainers who "will not participate in combat ops."

6. The U.S. becomes more involved when advising and training fail. Bombing begins, if it hasn't already started.

7. U.S. commits ground troops and materiel.

8. Quagmire begins.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Saigon. Among others.
 
annata said:
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.”
White House Admits US Troops in Syria Will Go on Combat Raids -- News from Antiwar.com
Click to expand...

Maybe when the US troops go on combat missions they won't be wearing boots. Maybe Obama will have them wearing camo sneakers instead. He did say at least sixteen times no boots on the ground.

Read my lips...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1065211036 said:
Maybe when the US troops go on combat missions they won't be wearing boots. Maybe Obama will have them wearing camo sneakers instead. He did say at least sixteen times no boots on the ground.

Read my lips...
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
The difference is, Russia's in Syria with the Syrian governments permission, the US, not so much. ;)
 
Montecresto said:
The difference is, Russia's in Syria with the Syrian governments permission, the US, not so much. ;)
Click to expand...
with due respect the Syrian gov't ( regime) hasn't got a lot of say in either case.
I'm not fan of Obama here, his Syrian policy is full of self imposed failures, and I also recognize Syria is a Russian client state.

But "Syria"has ceased to exist ( like Libya) -it's just a battle ground for regional powers,and local proxies/jihadists/Islamist
( and a few secularists)

At this point it's all international geo-power politics by all players involved.
 
annata said:
with due respect the Syrian gov't ( regime) hasn't got a lot of say in either case.
I'm not fan of Obama here, his Syrian policy is full of self imposed failures, and I also recognize Syria is a Russian client state.

But "Syria"has ceased to exist ( like Libya) -it's just a battle ground for regional powers,and local proxies/jihadists/Islamist
( and a few secularists)

At this point it's all international geo-power politics by all players involved.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that. The Syrian government remains the legitimate government of Syria, are you aware of any other government that has been recognised by the UN or any individual country as the legitimate government of Syria? (Not that that alone makes one legitimate), and Russia has Syria's permission, the US is there because as usual, we can be!!!!! The United States, with an heir of morality, and likely a significant amount of support from the American people would go to the defense of any of its ally's in the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) if the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian governments were supporting with trainers, advisors, air support, drone surveillance and finally boots on the ground an insurgency determined to overthrow the governments thereof. Frankly, I could not be more dissatisfied with our hypocritical United States foreign policy, and my fellow Americans which continue to support it.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
The difference is, Russia's in Syria with the Syrian governments permission, the US, not so much. ;)
Click to expand...

ISIS and the Syrian opposition also operate without Syrian government permission. It's a civil war. The only remotely legitimate "government" is that of the Kurds.
 
Montecresto said:
I appreciate that. The Syrian government remains the legitimate government of Syria, are you aware of any other government that has been recognised by the UN or any individual country as the legitimate government of Syria? (Not that that alone makes one legitimate), and Russia has Syria's permission, the US is there because as usual, we can be!!!!! The United States, with an heir of morality, and likely a significant amount of support from the American people would go to the defense of any of its ally's in the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) if the Russian, Chinese, and Iranian governments were supporting with trainers, advisors, air support, drone surveillance and finally boots on the ground an insurgency determined to overthrow the governments thereof. Frankly, I could not be more dissatisfied with our hypocritical United States foreign policy, and my fellow Americans which continue to support it.
Click to expand...
you mean the hypocrisy of calling out the Russians? Have we actually done that?
If so - then I agree. Obama reminds me of a petulant child regarding Syria. He keeps saying things like "quagmire" -
when in truth if it goes bad for Russia ,they just leave. This isn't like they did in Afghanistan..

I'm a great believer in realpolitik nations act in their own self interest either overtly or covertly.
So lets not play a bunch of games with "condemnations" -when Russia is doig just that.
It sucks they are bombing the "Syrian moderates" -but it's not like that was ever going to be a viable stand alone force.

Both the US/Russia and the region want a stable Syria. If it's not the type of government we want -oh well - too bad.
We should have thought about that when we were trying to weaken Assad with "Friends of Syria" - another one of Hilary escapades
 
Jack Hays said:
ISIS and the Syrian opposition also operate without Syrian government permission. It's a civil war. The only remotely legitimate "government" is that of the Kurds.
Click to expand...

Its a civil war that has plenty of outside forces pressing for the overthrow of the legitimate government. Only Russia has been invited in, all others are interlopers and trespassers. I know you're torn between criticising Obama and supporting any conflict the US can inject itself into, but mind you, Obama has no authorisation to use force in Syria.
 
"Boots on the ground" usually refers to regular ground troops a la Iraq and Afghanistan rather than to embedded special forces. Nevertheless, it is a stupid, almost Orwellian euphemism, and it's unsurprising that people take it literally.

Risky Thicket said:
Actually the U.S. has likely covertly created one faction even before the conflict began.
Click to expand...

When has this ever happened?

Montecresto said:
Its a civil war that has plenty of outside forces pressing for the overthrow of the legitimate government. Only Russia has been invited in, all others are interlopers and trespassers. I know you're torn between criticising Obama and supporting any conflict the US can inject itself into, but mind you, Obama has no authorisation to use force in Syria.
Click to expand...

Neither the US nor the Gulf states nor Turkey recognize the Assad regime as legitimate. Whether fair or not, powerful countries by and large get to decide what they consider to be legitimate.
 
annata said:
you mean the hypocrisy of calling out the Russians? Have we actually done that?
If so - then I agree. Obama reminds me of a petulant child regarding Syria. He keeps saying things like "quagmire" -
when in truth if it goes bad for Russia ,they just leave. This isn't like they did in Afghanistan..

I'm a great believer in realpolitik nations act in their own self interest either overtly or covertly.
So lets not play a bunch of games with "condemnations" -when Russia is doig just that.
It sucks they are bombing the "Syrian moderates" -but it's not like that was ever going to be a viable stand alone force.

Both the US/Russia and the region want a stable Syria. If it's not the type of government we want -oh well - too bad.
We should have thought about that when we were trying to weaken Assad with "Friends of Syria" - another one of Hilary escapades
Click to expand...

I think we agree then. Syria IS Russia's ally. Syria has invited Russia's help. No matter how "moderate" the opposition forces may be (wink wink) they are trying to topple the Assad government. Russia has an obligation to respond. The us would, has indeed, done the same thing. Btw bud, have you really not heard Obama calling the Russians out for being in Syria?
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
I think we agree then. Syria IS Russia's ally. Syria has invited Russia's help. No matter how "moderate" the opposition forces may be (wink wink) they are trying to topple the Assad government. Russia has an obligation to respond. The us would, has indeed, done the same thing. Btw bud, have you really not heard Obama calling the Russians out for being in Syria?
Click to expand...
I don't pay any attention to Obama.
Seriously when it comes to foreign policy,he's a bungler of the first degree. I pay continued attention to his ineptitude, or destruction to Libya but not his speech.

By every international norm Russia in Syria is fine, I don't know about obligation, but it's not worth quibbling over.
They are there. deal with it
 
annata said:
I don't pay any attention to Obama.
Seriously when it comes to foreign policy,he's a bungler of the first degree. I pay continued attention to his ineptitude, or destruction to Libya but not his speech.

By every international norm Russia in Syria is fine, I don't know about obligation, but it's not worth quibbling over.
They are there. deal with it
Click to expand...

I think as usual we're mostly on the same page. You'll not find me defending Obama's FP in the ME. As for Russia in Syria being an obligation, I only used that language because it's the same language constantly rolled out when it's America's perceived role when we talk about Ukraine, Israel or any number of our "allys" in the South Pacific region with regards to alleged Chinese agressions.
 
Montecresto said:
Its a civil war that has plenty of outside forces pressing for the overthrow of the legitimate government. Only Russia has been invited in, all others are interlopers and trespassers. I know you're torn between criticising Obama and supporting any conflict the US can inject itself into, but mind you, Obama has no authorisation to use force in Syria.
Click to expand...

Authorization to use force in Syria has never been an issue for me.
 
When the Pentagon announced plans to send a team of commandos to Syria, no one seemed to stop and ask the most basic question – how are they going to get into an active war zone in the first place? Official documents show that the U.S. Air Force likely set the stage for this secretive mission years ago.

One of the Air Force Special Operations Command’s main missions is to sneak America’s elite troops in and out of hostile countries with its fleet of specialized aircraft. But the flying branch’s top commando headquarters also relies on specially trained airmen to first find places to drop troops and equipment.

In 2013, so-called Assault Zone Reconnaissance Teams — a.k.a. AZRTs — scouted out nearly 300 landing zones, drop zones and other sites “throughout the Middle East,” according to an official Air Force history War Is Boring obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition to finding suitable landing sites, the highly-trained AZRTs help coordinate missions from the ground and call in air strikes, rescue downed airmen or wounded commandos … and even watch the weather.

“There’s a lot of work going on at SOC FWD locations — SOC FWD Yemen, Lebanon, Oman, all the GCC — the Gulf Cooperation Council,” a member of the 720th Special Tactics Group wrote in a February 2014 email reproduced in the historical review. Censors redacted the individual’s name.

American Commandos Are Ready to Sneak All Over the Middle East | War Is Boring
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom