We didn’t have people in Syria ALREADY?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Dang, y’all, I wrote this Friday and thought I posted it. But I didn’t. So here it is…

Lindsey Graham, in his role as the hawk on the campaign trail, isn’t about to give POTUS credit for anything these days:

GRAHAM ON PRESIDENT OBAMA SENDING 50 SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES TO SYRIA

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the news President Obama is willing to send up to fifty Special Operations Forces to Syria.

“President Obama is putting fifty brave Americans at risk without a clear strategy of how to degrade and destroy ISIL.

“ISIL is not going to be intimidated by this move.  In fact, ISIL will see this as yet another sign of President Obama’s weakness.

“ISIL is all-in for their horrific agenda and demented view of the world.  Unfortunately, President Obama is not all in when it comes to degrading and destroying ISIL.  Today’s announcement again reinforces that view.”

#####

If Obama doesn’t send troops, he’s soft on terror. If he does, then he’s doing it without thinking it through. POTUS can’t win.

But the senator does have kind of a point. Even though these are some of our toughest troops, 50 of them aren’t going to tip the balance. So, what is the plan? What’s it gonna be then, eh? Are we in or are we out.

Frankly, I would have hoped that we had at least that many snake-eaters here and there in the country already, on the QT — maintaining contacts with friendlies, advising, and most of all collecting intel for if and when we go in officially. We’re supposedly already doing some training and providing weapons — well, who’s doing that? OK, the CIA. But still — do they not wear boots? Do they not go armed? Perhaps not.

But I guess this represents some sort of departure from what we’ve been doing. Otherwise, there’d be no point in making an announcement about a troop movement this small. What would amount to half a company were they conventional troops. Which of course they’re not.

Bottom line, what’s the plan? What is the difference we intend for these 50 men to make?

17 thoughts on “We didn’t have people in Syria ALREADY?

  1. Doug Ross

    Any plan to “destroy ISIL” won’t work. All the plans attempted so far haven’t worked. Lindsey is a war mongering fool. If he wants to destroy ISIL, let’s see him put his own life on the line to do it.

    Reply
      1. Doug Ross

        ANY plan. It’s whack-a-mole on a larger scale. You push them down here and they pop up over there. We kill them (and innocents) and we create a whole new bunch of enemies seeking revenge.

        I suppose the “nuke ’em all and let Allah sort them out” plan might work. For awhile.

        Reply
            1. Doug Ross

              Better chance to destroy kudzu and fire ants in South Carolina.

              We should help people and countries who want our help. We should defend our country strenuously. We should not be taking the fight against a nebulous terrorist organization comprised of people with vastly different worldviews than ours to their turf.

              How about giving peace a chance? The alternative hasn’t worked.

              Reply
              1. Brad Warthen

                Whether there is peace is not our call to make. We’ve been unilaterally declaring peace, and it doesn’t work.

                Remember when we “ended the war” in Iraq? Where’s the peace?

                Reply
                1. Bryan Caskey

                  “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

                  -Stuff Gen. James Mattis Said, Vol. II

  2. Juan Caruso

    How long before POTUS can claim a Russian airstrike has killed several of our SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES?

    A very callous strategy that Tom Rogan (National Review/Daily Telegraph) predicts, “Now that U.S. Special Forces are in Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, will be dead by the end of the year, which is great news.” Rogan’s prediction could certainly pan out if Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, were dead already.

    More important to the administration, however, are dead special forces (in Russian airstrike on ISIS) to underscore and remind voters of Obama’s “reluctant” Osama bin Laden legacy.

    The military strategy of this administration, beyond leadership from behind, false red lines, and feckless rules of engagement, has been unnecessary drama that victimizes military leaders, weakens perception of U.S. commitments to our allies, and degrades U.S. respect from ideological foes. In his own words, to degrade ISIL.

    On the bright side, the guy does like to use drones to exterminate personally approved targets. He said he would even before election to his first term, proving that he still heeds Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett’s military advice.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      But as I said, I had kinda figured we already had guys there doing that…

      Was this announced to show the White House was doing something deliberately, days after saying it had not authorized what happened on that raid where we lost a man?

      Reply
      1. Mark Stewart

        Since CIA types don’t count (sorry people), it creates a situation where Russia is going to have a pretty hard time risking bombing the groups they know we support if there is the reasonable expectation that American special forces are embedded with the groups.

        Of course the same goes for us too; so the rebels not with us most closely are going to be the ones to take on Assad’s forces – and the Iranians (and being bombed by Russia) – which means that we are most likely to be gamed out of being on the “winning” side when this is all over. But it does kind of compel Russia to refocus on bombing ISIS instead of “our” rebels. Sometimes you take the short wins; even though it does open a prospect of Assad being able to stay in power. Which kinda puts us right back at square one…

        Reply
        1. Bryan Caskey

          “Since CIA types don’t count (sorry people), it creates a situation where Russia is going to have a pretty hard time risking bombing the groups they know we support if there is the reasonable expectation that American special forces are embedded with the groups.”

          I highly doubt that we’re going to share the movement and location of our special forces with the Russkies.

          Reply
    1. Brad Warthen

      Hey, if you can figure out how to make that happen, I’m interested.

      I’ll settle for a lower rank. I’d rather let someone who knows what he’s doing call the shots.

      Reply
    2. Doug Ross

      I’m sure there will be opportunities for your grandson to serve on the front line, especially when President Graham takes office. It will be all war, all the time.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *