"Direct Action"

[Zam-Zam]

AKA....."boots on the ground"......Iraq, Syria:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.


"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."

This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131


So, for all those who insisted that "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iraq was a horrible idea, it's happening anyway. Make of it what you will.

 

[marvin martian]

I hope you aren't surprised none of the Obamatrons have anything to say about this.

I am, however, looking forward to the coming justifications of Obama's Iraq and Syrian wars.

 

[Jen]

AKA....."boots on the ground"......Iraq, Syria:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.


"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."

This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131


So, for all those who insisted that "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iraq was a horrible idea, it's happening anyway. Make of it what you will.

I don't want any boots on the ground during the Obama administration.
I'm not sure I want boots on the ground during any administration, but let's start with this one. I say NO. The rules of combat that Obama has implemented will just get our guys killed.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I hope you aren't surprised none of the Obamatrons have anything to say about this.

I am, however, looking forward to the coming justifications of Obama's Iraq and Syrian wars.

I did take note of the fact that none of his usual apologists had posted on this topic. Perhaps they are awaiting further instruction from the mother ship.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sheik Down

This is leading to what our petrocrats want, a war with their competitor Iran.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I don't want any boots on the ground during the Obama administration.
I'm not sure I want boots on the ground during any administration, but let's start with this one. I say NO. The rules of combat that Obama has implemented will just get our guys killed.

TIME magazine has echoed your sentiment:

Obama’s Syria Strategy Is Doomed to Fail

http://time.com/4094333/obamas-syria-strategy/

 

[Max R.]

TIME magazine has echoed your sentiment:

Obama’s Syria Strategy Is Doomed to Fail

http://time.com/4094333/obamas-syria-strategy/

Good article. It never ceases to amuse me how the Left spits upon the military right up until they need them:
Instead of this consistent mission creep—committing ever more U.S. troops and equipment to the conflict—U.S. leaders should focus less on military solutions. They should accept the de facto containment of ISIS, and instead prioritize non-military approaches, humanitarian support for the refugee crisis and aggressive pursuit of diplomatic options.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carton outlined the Pentagon strategy on Tuesday in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He described weapons shipments and air support for Syrian rebel groups, additional support and advisors for Iraqi army units, and raids by U.S. special operations forces.

This is not a new strategy. U.S. Special Forces have previously engaged in raids in both Syria and Iraq. This includes last week’s prison raid in Iraq that rescued 70 hostages but also resulted in the first combat death of a U.S. soldier in the fight against ISIS. The U.S. has also previously provided arms and training to Syrian rebels. The main difference with the new plan will likely be that rebel groups will no longer be vetted as thoroughly, and that the U.S. troop presencewill be long-term.

To date, the fight against ISIS has been unsuccessful largely because it has failed to address the conflict’s underlying causes: a bloody ongoing civil war between rebel forces and the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the involvement of various regional proxies in funding and arming militias, and the Iraqi army’s inability—despite a decade of U.S. training and funding—to provide a feasible on-the-ground counterpart to U.S. airstrikes.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Good article. It never ceases to amuse me how the Left spits upon the military right up until they need them:
Instead of this consistent mission creep—committing ever more U.S. troops and equipment to the conflict—U.S. leaders should focus less on military solutions. They should accept the de facto containment of ISIS, and instead prioritize non-military approaches, humanitarian support for the refugee crisis and aggressive pursuit of diplomatic options.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carton outlined the Pentagon strategy on Tuesday in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He described weapons shipments and air support for Syrian rebel groups, additional support and advisors for Iraqi army units, and raids by U.S. special operations forces.

This is not a new strategy. U.S. Special Forces have previously engaged in raids in both Syria and Iraq. This includes last week’s prison raid in Iraq that rescued 70 hostages but also resulted in the first combat death of a U.S. soldier in the fight against ISIS. The U.S. has also previously provided arms and training to Syrian rebels. The main difference with the new plan will likely be that rebel groups will no longer be vetted as thoroughly, and that the U.S. troop presencewill be long-term.

To date, the fight against ISIS has been unsuccessful largely because it has failed to address the conflict’s underlying causes: a bloody ongoing civil war between rebel forces and the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria, the involvement of various regional proxies in funding and arming militias, and the Iraqi army’s inability—despite a decade of U.S. training and funding—to provide a feasible on-the-ground counterpart to U.S. airstrikes.

There is another dynamic here in play, and one you won't likely here much commentary on from the left:

While we're committing more combat troops in Syria, Russia continues ramping up its airwar. Their primary targets are the people we are supposed to be helping. So, a fair question would be, what happens if one our 'boots-on-the-ground' is killed by a Russian airstrike? What would be our response?

That's a question someone ought to ask the President. I wouldn't hold my breath, however, waiting for the press to do its job.

 

[Max R.]

There is another dynamic here in play, and one you won't likely here much commentary on from the left:

While we're committing more combat troops in Syria, Russia continues ramping up its airwar. Their primary targets are the people we are supposed to be helping. So, a fair question would be, what happens if one our 'boots-on-the-ground' is killed by a Russian airstrike? What would be our response?

That's a question someone ought to ask the President. I wouldn't hold my breath, however, waiting for the press to do its job.

Agreed. It's a dicey game of brinkmanship.

 

[Zam-Zam]

Agreed. It's a dicey game of brinkmanship.

These are tough times for the Obama Human Shields:

Aug. 20, 2013


"Again, I repeat: We’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."


-Obama at a press conference at the White House with Baltic leaders on





Aug. 30, 2013


"And in no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground; that would involve a long-term campaign."


-Obama in remarks with the presidents of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia at the White House





Aug. 31, 2013


"Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground."


-Obama in a statement on Syria at the White House





Sept. 7, 2013


"What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground."


-Obama in his weekly address





Sept. 9, 2013


"This will not be Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no American boots on the ground — period."


-National Security Advisor Susan Rice





Sept. 10, 2013


"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."


-Obama in a televised national address from the White House





More recently, in 2014, Obama talked less about "no boots on the ground" and more about those hypothetical troops not having a "combat" mission or be actually fighting — a distinction the White House keyed on Friday.





Sept. 5, 2014


"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria."


-Obama in remarks at a NATO conference





Sept. 10, 2014


"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."


-Obama in his plan to destroy the Islamic State





Sept. 19, 2014


"The president has ruled out the option of deploying American boots on the ground in Iraq and in Syria in a combat role."


-Earnest in a press briefing





Sept. 20, 2014


"I won’t commit our troops to fighting another ground war in Iraq, or in Syria."


-Obama in his weekly address


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ground-troops-or-no-combat-mission-in-syria/


In other news, the President assures everyone that if they like their plan, they can keep it.

 

[American Patriot]

The Hero of Islam strikes again, you go Goat Boy

 

[afella]

There is another dynamic here in play, and one you won't likely here much commentary on from the left:

While we're committing more combat troops in Syria, Russia continues ramping up its airwar. Their primary targets are the people we are supposed to be helping. So, a fair question would be, what happens if one our 'boots-on-the-ground' is killed by a Russian airstrike? What would be our response?

That's a question someone ought to ask the President. I wouldn't hold my breath, however, waiting for the press to do its job.

Notice that the boots on the ground comment, which there has been for some time now it is how we operate and those fellas are good at what they do, still didn't come until the ruskies started their air campaign.? There's a calculated risk involved with the situation, a Russian jet strikes US troops... Then what do you have? An excuse to demand Putin backs out. I do no like Obummder, but this is a smart play,

 

[Zam-Zam]

Notice that the boots on the ground comment, which there has been for some time now it is how we operate and those fellas are good at what they do, still didn't come until the ruskies started their air campaign.? There's a calculated risk involved with the situation, a Russian jet strikes US troops... Then what do you have? An excuse to demand Putin backs out. I do no like Obummder, but this is a smart play,

What leads you to believe Putin would "back out" simply because we, or anyone else, demands it?

 

[Arkady]

AKA....."boots on the ground"......Iraq, Syria:

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.


"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."

This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131


So, for all those who insisted that "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iraq was a horrible idea, it's happening anyway. Make of it what you will.

This is a mistake. We've shown no ability to make conditions better in the Middle East by force. If it must be done, let someone else do it... someone with more credibility than the US has in the region.

 

[Zam-Zam]

This is a mistake. We've shown no ability to make conditions better in the Middle East by force. If it must be done, let someone else do it... someone with more credibility than the US has in the region.

Whom do you suggest?

 

[Arkady]

Whom do you suggest?

I don't much care. Let them worry about it. As long as it's not my tax dollars and my nation's reputation being destroyed, I'm content for others to try their hand at this loser's game.

 

[Zam-Zam]

I don't much care. Let them worry about it. As long as it's not my tax dollars and my nation's reputation being destroyed, I'm content for others to try their hand at this loser's game.

I doubt that anyone with good intent will step up to the plate, but I could be wrong. The isolationist doctrine has definite benefits, and drawbacks. Without U.S. intervention, Assad is likely to retain power, and removing him from the global stage was a goal of the Obama administration. His majesty is concerned about his legacy.

At any rate, 50 U.S. troops may be better than 50 of anybody else's, but still not enough to make any meaningful impact. That's just fifty pair of boots in harm's way while Russia is conducting airstrikes in the region.

If this administration has a coherent long-term strategy with regard to Syria, it is not discernible at this point.

 

[Arkady]

I doubt that anyone with good intent will step up to the plate, but I could be wrong. The isolationist doctrine has definite benefits, and drawbacks. Without U.S. intervention, Assad is likely to retain power, and removing him from the global stage was a goal of the Obama administration. His majesty is concerned about his legacy.

At any rate, 50 U.S. troops may be better than 50 of anybody else's, but still not enough to make any meaningful impact. That's just fifty pair of boots in harm's way while Russia is conducting airstrikes in the region.

If this administration has a coherent long-term strategy with regard to Syria, it is not discernible at this point.

To be clear, I'm not an isolationist. I believe in the international community coming together to prevent or reverse military expansionism. If, for example, we had something like Iraq's conquest of Kuwait, I'd support the US joining a coalition to oust them -- using sanctions, at first, then military force if sanctions didn't work-- because I think there needs to be a clear message that military expansion will never be allowed to stand. I'd say the same about Israel's illegal expansion into Palestinian land. I'm no isolationist. But there's a big difference between that and involving yourself in civil wars in order to overturn leaders you don't like or prop up leaders you do like. We don't belong in Syria. If we get involved, yes Assad may be ousted, as was Hussein and Khadaffi. But does that mean there will be any improvement? We can do more humanitarian good in much surer ways elsewhere, through peaceful means. Intervention in civil wars is expensive and tends not to work out well for anyone. And that's especially true if involvement turns into a proxy war with Russia. We've been down that road before.

As for Obama's legacy, I think it's in pretty good shape. When he took office we were in absolute economic freefall, and were were neck-deep in two bloody quagmires. Today the economy has returned to normal and our foreign policy is no bloodier than normal. Taking over a complete disaster and restoring a decent status quo isn't a bad legacy to have.

 

[Dawg]

surprised Bugs isn't in this thread since he top posted of these troops and said we don't have boots on the ground...................surely he doesn't think these troops can float?

Yes, I know why he and other libs aren't in this thread..........

 

[Max R.]

This is a mistake. We've shown no ability to make conditions better in the Middle East by force. If it must be done, let someone else do it... someone with more credibility than the US has in the region.

Agreed, plus, as of the last 6+ years, someone who commands more international respect.