Well, it has finally happened. President Obama has ordered a small force of U.S. Special Opertions troops to Syria. Those American boots on the ground that Obama promised would never come to Syria are now going there.
Obama has ordered fewer than 100 American troops to Syria. These are special ops troops who will be attached to Sunni rebel forces that the USA considers moderate. The White House actually says that these guys will not be in a combat role, but that is ridiculous. The claim of a non-combatant role for these soldiers is about as honest as the claim that the Benghazi attack was not done by terrorists but was the result of some youtube video that no one had ever seen. Consider these few points:
1. The Sunni rebel forces to which the American troops are being attached have been the target of nearly non-stop Russian air attacks. If our soldiers are killed by a Russian bomb or missile, it will be of no solace to the bereaved family that their loved one was technically not engaged in combat.
2. These same Sunni rebel forces principally fight against the Assad regime military and not ISIS. Oh, some of the battles are against ISIS, but Assad is the main enemy. That means that American troops will be there supporting a fight against Iranian, Russian, Hezbollah and Syrian soldiers. This coalition of Assad supporters have launched a major offensive on the ground and are sure to attack to locations where the US troops will be located.
3. It is inevitable that one or more of the US troops will get captured by either ISIS or Assad forces. Do we really want to see American troops held captive by Iran or, worse yet, by ISIS?
4. There is no mission for the American troops in Syria other than combat. Given that fact, it is maniacal to send such a small force. Either the USA should use its military power to effect change or it should not send forces at all. Employing insufficient troops is the basic strategy that managed to lost the Vietnam War for the USA. It's hard to imagine that this failed strategy is the basic take away for Democrats like Obama when it comes to the military.
5. Our soldiers, especially those in special operations, deserve our thanks for all that they do. They do not deserve to be used as political props so that Obama can tell the America people about all that he is doing in Syria. It is particularly disgusting that Obama is sending just a few of these good men on a mission made extremely dangerous because of Obama's refusal to use the full power of the USA. Let me put it this way: ISIS or Assad can stand up to 80 special operations soldiers without too much difficulty. Neither, however, could stand up to the full might of the American armed forces.
So what can we take away from all this? First of all, Obama lied when he promised that there would be no troops in Syria. Most likely, this is just Obama succumbing to pressure, and when disaster befalls some of these troops, Obama will just tell the media that he really never thought that sending these guys to Syria would work. Obama is both weak and disgusting. Second, this move is unlikely to change much if anything in Syria. Indeed, our local allies will look at this latest move and see it for what it really is: a political ploy by a weak leader. Third, this move by Obama is an insult to all of America's military men and women. It is Obama telling them that they are expendable even for missions in which he does not believe nor about which he even cares.
I want the media to ask all the presidential candidates what they think of this latest move. I want to know if Hillary Clinton supports this. I want to know what Donald Trump would do in this situation. I want to know if Bernie Sanders wants to remove these guys. We already have a disgusting liar and coward in the White House; we need to know whether or not the candidates are similarly scum.
Obama has ordered fewer than 100 American troops to Syria. These are special ops troops who will be attached to Sunni rebel forces that the USA considers moderate. The White House actually says that these guys will not be in a combat role, but that is ridiculous. The claim of a non-combatant role for these soldiers is about as honest as the claim that the Benghazi attack was not done by terrorists but was the result of some youtube video that no one had ever seen. Consider these few points:
1. The Sunni rebel forces to which the American troops are being attached have been the target of nearly non-stop Russian air attacks. If our soldiers are killed by a Russian bomb or missile, it will be of no solace to the bereaved family that their loved one was technically not engaged in combat.
2. These same Sunni rebel forces principally fight against the Assad regime military and not ISIS. Oh, some of the battles are against ISIS, but Assad is the main enemy. That means that American troops will be there supporting a fight against Iranian, Russian, Hezbollah and Syrian soldiers. This coalition of Assad supporters have launched a major offensive on the ground and are sure to attack to locations where the US troops will be located.
3. It is inevitable that one or more of the US troops will get captured by either ISIS or Assad forces. Do we really want to see American troops held captive by Iran or, worse yet, by ISIS?
4. There is no mission for the American troops in Syria other than combat. Given that fact, it is maniacal to send such a small force. Either the USA should use its military power to effect change or it should not send forces at all. Employing insufficient troops is the basic strategy that managed to lost the Vietnam War for the USA. It's hard to imagine that this failed strategy is the basic take away for Democrats like Obama when it comes to the military.
5. Our soldiers, especially those in special operations, deserve our thanks for all that they do. They do not deserve to be used as political props so that Obama can tell the America people about all that he is doing in Syria. It is particularly disgusting that Obama is sending just a few of these good men on a mission made extremely dangerous because of Obama's refusal to use the full power of the USA. Let me put it this way: ISIS or Assad can stand up to 80 special operations soldiers without too much difficulty. Neither, however, could stand up to the full might of the American armed forces.
So what can we take away from all this? First of all, Obama lied when he promised that there would be no troops in Syria. Most likely, this is just Obama succumbing to pressure, and when disaster befalls some of these troops, Obama will just tell the media that he really never thought that sending these guys to Syria would work. Obama is both weak and disgusting. Second, this move is unlikely to change much if anything in Syria. Indeed, our local allies will look at this latest move and see it for what it really is: a political ploy by a weak leader. Third, this move by Obama is an insult to all of America's military men and women. It is Obama telling them that they are expendable even for missions in which he does not believe nor about which he even cares.
I want the media to ask all the presidential candidates what they think of this latest move. I want to know if Hillary Clinton supports this. I want to know what Donald Trump would do in this situation. I want to know if Bernie Sanders wants to remove these guys. We already have a disgusting liar and coward in the White House; we need to know whether or not the candidates are similarly scum.
No comments:
Post a Comment