It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S Military likely to send as many as 1,000 more ground troops to Syria

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
So much for non-interventionism. We weren't happy with the Obama administrations decision to send around 400 or so ground troops and advisers to Syria. We certainly weren't happy with Libya. It looks like the Trump administration has no intention of changing course, in fact it's almost as if they'll be doubling down on foreign military intervention:


The U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into northern Syria in the coming weeks, expanding the American presence in the country ahead of the offensive on the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa, according to U.S. defense officials familiar with the matter.

The deployment, if approved by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and President Trump, would potentially double the number of U.S. forces in Syria and increase the potential for direct U.S. combat involvement in a conflict that has been characterized by confusion and competing priorities among disparate forces.

www.washingtonpost.com...

This is just the beginning i believe. I think we'll see an increased presence in the Middle East under this administration. Let's not forget the drones either. The drones ain't going away.




posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I literally just posted the below comment in another thread. This only reinforces my concerns.




As much as I'd like to think of Trump as an outsider, the fact is every President post 911 has doubled down and increased our footprint overseas and escalated the wars in the Middle East and Africa. 

This includes Mr Trump. We have boots on the ground in both Syria and Yemen when previously we were just supporting the terrorists. In the end, the joke my very well be on us. Time will certainly tell



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump is just one man (with agendas yet to be determined).

Many of the people who are cogs in this system were there prior to his election in some way shape or form.

So thinking the system will somehow dramatically change direction is a but naive IMHO.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Trump is just one man (with agendas yet to be determined).

Many of the people who are cogs in this system were there prior to his election in some way shape or form.

So thinking the system will somehow dramatically change direction is a but naive IMHO.


So Congress hasn't authorized war and neither has Trump, yet the military just does what it pleases?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


Trump is just one man (with agendas yet to be determined).


Who holds the most powerful position in the land. One man who probably has the biggest voice in the room. Isn't he supposed to be an outsider?

How many people on here said Obama or Bush was just 'one man'? We never gave them that excuse. Why's it different under Trump? He's in the same position.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Take Raqqa, and IS will collapse. The sooner it's done, the sooner the bloodshed can be over.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Trump has given many of the generals and the CIA the ability to make these decisions without his OK.

Which can create a very dangerous environment, and one in which he can distance himself from the decisions.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

As it stands I have as much proof of my statement as I do optimism, hence why I said in my opinion at the end.

That being said, no one will truly know for a few more years. I've been burned enough with promises though, so forgive me for not offering praise until I see results.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Trump has given many of the generals and the CIA the ability to make these decisions without his OK.

Which can create a very dangerous environment, and one in which he can distance himself from the decisions.


So more of the same. Not only did Assad not ask for US "assistance" within his sovereign state, he explicitly stated he didn't want us there. I guess that doesn't matter though, we're the USA and we do what we want.
edit on 15-3-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Take Raqqa, and IS will collapse. The sooner it's done, the sooner the bloodshed can be over.


The Leadership has already fled Raqqa. Increasingly it seems the cowards who run the show just leave their men to die when facing any serious opposition.

The Islamic State will be defeated militarily by the Syrian Army and the Kurds, after that they'll just become an underground terrorist organisation with a global reach. With no military presence they'll merely commit terrorist attacks in the West, Russia and Iran (the ones who contributed to their downfall).

To finish them off you'd have to go after those who support them with funding and other aid. Which means Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Monarchies. Unfortunately I don't see that happening under the Trump administration, or any other administration for that matter.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Which creates an ironic question. Can you force freedom on people?

If we're protecting our interests by intervention is that granting freedom?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Even if our "interests" violate someones sovereignty​. Good thing for us it doesn't work both ways, eh?

edit on 15-3-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

I guess we did not steal all the artifacts yet.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Trump said:

(a) he is going to destroy ISIS quickly
(b) he is not going to telegraph his strategy, or announce his military moves in advance

He is going to kick behinds and hold press conferences after (or Tweet as the case may be)

I saw reports last night that U.S. grounds troops (as many as 5,000) have already crossed the border into Syria...I assume to take Raqqa...and that as many troops are directly engaged now in Mosul, to drive ISIS out of that stronghold.

If I were a betting man, I would think that after ISIS is crushed...the deal will be that Russia will be left responsible for maintaining stability in Syria (likely with Assaud left in charge, and mopping up all of the other smaller Islamist factions), and the US will take responsibility for getting Iraq back in shape (thus boxing out Iran).



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

As we've seen with other countries trying to attempt to take a page out of our playbook. Sanctions, staunch UN rhetoric ect. ect.

Luckily we right the rules and decide which we have to abide.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Obama tried using harsh language to stop ISIS.

Trump is going to use bullets.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sometimes bullets fuel ideas rather than kill them. Isn't that how we got here in the first place?

Or was it not us that helped Osama, Hussein, Gudaffi, and Assad?

Did helping form Israel create stability?



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
...and the US will take responsibility for getting Iraq back in shape (thus boxing out Iran).



That ship has already sailed.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Does it matter? Unless you have a time machine, ain't nothing going to change.

Obama tried to "contain" ISIS with jobs programs, climate change excuses and the leftists would shout "Mozoltov!" every time a drone bombed a wedding.

Trump is putting boots on the ground to direct the utter destruction of ISIS.

I don't see this as a bad thing.

I see no redeeming value in ISIS.

They should all die and die quickly and horribly.

I'm sure some will try to defend ISIS by stating how we shouldn't go in there and hurt them, but I'm sick of the candy-assed tactics that have gotten us no where.



posted on Mar, 15 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
" We have boots on the ground in both Syria and Yemen when previously we were just supporting the terrorist"

Obama put the troops there. He obligated us to Syria. We can't just pull and Iraq and let the place go to # after we influenced it. We shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place but since we have, we have obligations.




top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join