After who knows how many times the Obama Administration assured us that U.S. military forces would not become involved in combat actions in Syria, that idea is suddenly history. In fact, our troops have already been involved in some fighting, costing one American his life – Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler.
This is right out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, folks. Here are the snippets from NBCNews.com, along with my editorial comments:
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.
I already asked the question and I’ll ask again: How do we tell who the “capable partners” are in a Muslim civil war – where all of the factions read the Quran and follow its dictates to kill non-Muslims? We have no friends in Syria. This is a struggle for power inside a Muslim state.
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.”
Ah. So, a rescue mission involving U.S. soldiers firing their weapons and losing one of their own in combat is not “boots on the ground.” I see. I think. No, wait, I don’t get it. Wasn’t that two conflicting ideas in one paragraph? It was.
This may mean some American soldiers “will be in harm’s way, no question about it,” Carter said last week.
So, it is boots on the ground. In Syria – where President Obama promised us we’ll never have boots on the ground.
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.
“This is combat and things are complicated,” Carter said.
During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Carter said Wheeler “was killed in combat.”
Okay. So, our troops are in combat now – in Syria – where we’ll never have troops in combat. Why?
White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Tuesday said the administration has “no intention of long term ground combat”. He added that U.S. forces will continue to robustly train, advise and assist.
I think I’ve heard this idea before. First it was no ground combat in Syria. Now it’s combat in Syria, but no intention of long term ground combat. I feel better now. Why are we doing this?
A feisty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said on Tuesday in the Senate Armed Services committee hearing that the U.S. effort in Syria is a “half-assed strategy at best,” and said that the U.S. is not doing a “damn thing” to bring down Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Ah, yes, the feisty Senator Lindsey Graham. We finally got to it. This is why we’ve got boots on the ground in Syria, now. We must bring down Bashar Assad’s regime, just like we brought down Moammar Ghadaffi’s Libyan regime, and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and look what happened. Arab Spring. Chaos, more Muslim civil war, jihad, ISIS, a caliphate. And Europe over-run by millions of “refugees” from the post-Arab Spring internecine power struggles.
Carter on Tuesday pushed back against that notion.
Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the “balance of forces” has tilted in Assad’s favor.
I just love that push-back stuff – don’t you? But wait a minute.
The Russian army and air forces are in Syria, killing what we’re to believe are the good jihadis and defending Bashar Assad’s regime. The Obama administration is sending our troops in there committed to destroying Bashar Assad’s regime and killing only the bad jihadis. I mean, how do you tell who’s who? Can you really tell? I’m just asking.
So, let’s say the Russians kill all the good jihadis and our soldiers kill all the bad jihadis. Then what? How long will it be until the U.S. forces and the Russian forces are shooting at each other over whether or not Bashar Assad stays in power?
Not too long, I’d say. It’s highly possible.