Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields

Esper: US troops, armored vehicles going to Syria oil fields
www.apnews.com...

BRUSSELS (AP) — The United States will send armored vehicles and combat troops into eastern Syria to keep oil fields from potentially falling into the hands of Islamic State militants, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said.

Although Esper did not mention the size of the U.S. reinforcements, it could total several hundred troops because fuel-guzzling tanks and other armored vehicles depend on a large supply and logistical support group.

Wait a second.

I thought Trump was withdrawing US troops from Syria?
AND I thought ISIS was defeated?
Are these US Oilfields we are sending US Troops to protect?

He made clear the main purpose is to prevent IS from regaining access to Syrian oil

So we abandon the Turks who lost thousands of lives fighting ISIS for us? Because we needed so badly to exit and it's not our problem?

But we are NOW sending US Forces to Syria to protect SYRIAN OIL FIELDS?

Russsia and Syria have the troops and resources to take back Northern Syria?

But the US is sending troops to protect SYRIA'S Oil Fields.

Just, WOW.

a reply to: Extorris

I don't know where to start. Risking US Soldiers and Spending US Taxpayer Dollars to protect Syrian Oil Fields?

Protecting SYRIAN Oil Fields is worth risking US Troops, protecting our Allies who fought for us and took Raqqa from ISIS? Not worth it.

The stage is being set -- Soon enough the time will come for an "Accident" to happen and commence the great war that has been looming for some time now.

a reply to: Extorris

It's a pickle. We should not be there at all. The problem is Obama destabilized Syria to the point they can't defend themselves, letting the ISIS remnants rebuild would be a mistake. Russia should be sending in soldiers imo.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Russia should be sending in soldiers imo.

Now that the US has abandoned the border area, they are, just not to combat ISIS but to facilitate the Kurdish withdrawal.

Russia says it sent hundreds of additional troops to Syria

Syrian government and Russian military police are to control the rest of the 273-mile Syria-Turkey border. They are to ensure that Syrian Kurdish fighters, who were U.S. allies in the fight against the Islamic State group and who freed most of the region of IS, pull 19 miles away from the frontier.

a reply to: Extorris

Link?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Extorris

It's a pickle. We should not be there at all. The problem is Obama destabilized Syria to the point they can't defend themselves, letting the ISIS remnants rebuild would be a mistake. Russia should be sending in soldiers imo.

Pres. Obama did not destabilize Syria? There is really no scenario where the Syrian revolution can be blamed on the USA.

My question NOW is why in the world is it the USA's job to send US Troops to protect SYRIAN oil fields that profit Assad and Russia?

Are you saying that Russia doesn't have the resources to Protect Syria's Oil Fields?

They sure as crap had the resources to take back Northern Syria once we obliged and abandoned the Turks.

a reply to: Liquesence

Thanks for the catch. Just added to OP

Oil fuels ISIS. It's how they got so big. If they get the oil they start growing again. They can buy more weapons, pay more recruits. Have to take away their sources of revenue.

If anybody does not understand ISIS has to have a large source of income to grow and why it is important to cut that option off they don't understand much of anything. It has nothing to do with the Kurds.

The Kurds in Iraq, Saddam was poising their source of water in the marshes in the early 90's. Nobody gave a damn about the Kurds after the first Gulf War. We even let Saddam keep helicopters that helped him keep killing them. Now all of a sudden phony outrage...meh.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
Oil fuels ISIS. It's how they got so big. If they get the oil they start growing again. They can buy more weapons, pay more recruits. Have to take away their sources of revenue.

Of course,
BUT

A) Pres. Trump said ISIS was defeated and that is why we could leave.
B) Russia and Assad have the forces to retake the North, but not guard their own Oil Fields? The USA does it for them?

So we abandon the Turks who lost thousands of lives fighting ISIS for us? Because we needed so badly to exit and it's not our problem?

So where from where does this perception come from that the Kurds were fighting Isis for us? I thought we were helping them, in their country...we are just a part of the war on terrorism.

a reply to: Extorris

ISIS, their caliphate (Islamic State) was indeed toppled. Imagine plowing over a large ant pile with a lawn mower. Is the ant hill (caliphate) destroyed? Of course it is. Will they rebuild it. Yes they will. Probably somewhere else where it stops getting run over with the Torro and they have a good source of resources.

a reply to: Extorris

If the US is sending troops to guard the Syrian oil fields then I have to ask who at the moment is receiving the income from said oil fields. Is it the Syrian government? If so then I'm sure they (and Russia) are more than capable of defending them. If no oil is being extracted at this time then where will the revenue go once they are up and running?
Somehow I can't see the US allowing the Syrian government to benefit in any way from this resource.

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

Does Russia or Assad not have the military resources to protect the Syrian Oil fields?

THAT is the USA's job?????

If Russia and Assad can't protect their own oil fields then they have no business owning Syria.

This after we send Military to Saudi Arabia to protect THEIR oil fields.

To me it appears the US Military has become a pro-bono mercenary force for hire to Oil-Dictatorships.

a reply to: Extorris

I said Russia should be the one doing it. So no clue what you mean. Obama armed forces fighting the government and did almost nothing to attack ISIS. Whether you think Obama was right or wrong he truly destabilized Syria to the point they are incapable of defending themselves yet.

a reply to: Extorris

More here:

U.S. to Deploy Hundreds of Troops to Guard Oil Fields in Syria, Pentagon Officials Say
www.nytimes.com...

Apparently the Kurds were protecting the Oil Fields and it was seen as an important negotiating tool for what would have been a negotiated peace between Assad/Russia and the Kurds.

Now with the Kurds evicted, Russia/Assad ask that US Troops take their place protecting SYRIAN oil fields...and WE OBLIGE? It's like we are Russian Puppets. A) Abandon the Kurds B) Send more troops to protect Syria's Oil.

a reply to: Extorris

So we abandon the Turks who lost thousands of lives fighting ISIS for us?

No, we abandoned the Kurds, but I think that is what you meant.

Anyway, Trump's spur of the moment decisions to withdraw has destabilized the region again. Now we have to send in more troops than what were there to begin with. I wonder how many extremists escaped during that whole ordeal.

a reply to: Extorris

You don't discuss your strategy in public when you go war. You may say one thing and do another. Usually works.

Why is this story coming out of Brussels? Could it be some globalist propaganda? is Esper a never Trumper and just stirring the propaganda? AP has been known for fake news in the past. Already been a heap of fake news coming out with Syria.

Adding armored reinforcements in the oil-producing area of Syria could mean sending several hundred U.S. troops

'Could mean' is not the same as 'does mean'. I am sure there are some people in the military that want to go back in for their own reasons.

Maybe all those ISIS detainees were unknowingly chipped. Maybe we needed them to escape to fight again. Now we can see how good our new smart bullets are....