The Congressional Research Service (CRS) said in a report released on August 20 that the Pentagon has estimated it would take “over 75,000 troops” to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
Meanwhile, the draft text of the resolution authorizing President Barack Obama to use force in Syria that is being taken up by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today prohibits the president from putting ground troops in Syria "for the purpose of combat operations"--but appears to leave open the possiblity that the president could put troops in Syria to secure chemical weapons.
"The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations," says the text of the draft resolution.
However, Section 2 of the resolution gives the president the authority to use the Armed Forces in Syria "as he determines necessary and appropriate" for a limited set of purposes, including "to protect our allies and partners against the use of" weapons of mass destruction.
Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.
The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.
I guess nobody really learns from history and this is considered recent.
Its my understanding we aren't trying to secure anything...we are gonna just blow it all up, the ability to use, the factories, stockpiles, etc.
Might take a ton of people to secure it, but only a few drones to drop bombs on em and not worry.