• 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!

Defense Sec. Ash Carter: More U.S. troops possible in Syria

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Defense Secretary Ash Carter said today more American ground troops could be sent to Syria in the future to contribute to the U.S.-led coalition that has carried out nearly 3,000 airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. New York Times reporter Eric Schmitt joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.


Video @: Defense Sec. Ash Carter: More U.S. troops possible in Syria

Well ****. Im guessing we will be seeing more US troops to Syria soon. When will we learn? "Learning curves are for ******s"
 
Historians are going to have a field day with the Obama/Carter comparisons.


But this was obvious almost from the get-go. 50? :lol:



What upsets me is that it seems that, without a strategic endstate, the administration is mostly sending them there to be human shields for the groups they are attached to. That's a ****ty mission.
 
Numbers without watching video?
 
In two cases we know of, one in Syria and one in Iraq, ISIS was holding captives. That meant the location could not just be destroyed, so a planned raid by special forces was the only way to free them and kill or capture the jihadists. I doubt these forces will be involved in direct action like that if they are working with local troops in northern and eastern Syria, or maybe in parts of Iraq. But several dozen special forces members used that way can have an effect far out of proportion to their numbers. They used Ospreys for the raid into Syria, and that might be one way to resupply them--fast, and no landing strip needed.

Part of their job may be to teach the locals some tactical skills that will make them more effective, and let them do the infantry fighting. That may be necessary where ISIS forces are so close to civilians that heavy weapons would kill a lot of innocent people. Even there, the U.S. forces may bring along weapons like portable missiles that would give the locals a big edge against a point target, say a building jihadists were firing from.

But the special forces can also use heavy weapons to kill the jihadists, so the local troops would, at least some of the time, have the much easier task of just moving up and taking control of whatever ground ISIS had been occupying. The U.S. forces will be able to call on all sorts of assets, including reconnaissance from satellites or U-2's. They can use drones to watch places where intelligence, maybe some of it gathered by the local troops they are working with, suggests there are ISIS forces. If they verify that there are, they will then be able to laser designators to pick them out in some cases, or where there is no direct line of sight to them, use a drone to designate the target.

Once that has been done, that or another drone might use a light missile, a more powerful one, or even a 250-lb. bomb against the target, depending on how much force was needed. And in cases that called for more yet--say where a lot of jihadists were found spread out in an open area, or in a convoy of vehicles, or in a large or fortified structure, the special forces could quickly call in aircraft with larger bombs, cluster bombs, etc. They could easily be miles away from the targets, without the ISIS forces ever even knowing they were there.
 
Last edited:
Good! I'm glad to see this administration, finally, taking some decisive steps on Syria. This is the right decision and long overdue.

I wonder at how the situation has changed, however. There isn't a "good" force to back there, as there is with the Kurdish government in Irbil. I also note the apparent lack of coherent Desired Endstate.
 
Back
Top Bottom