U.S. to Deploy Special Operations Forces in Syria: Official
43 replies, posted
[url]http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-deploy-special-operations-forces-syria-official-n454506[/url]
[QUOTE]The U.S. will send a small number of U.S. special operations forces into Syria as part of a shift in its strategy against ISIS, officials said Friday.
A senior administration official confirmed that President Barack Obama has authorized a contingent of less than 50 special operations forces to deploy into northern Syria.
"We have been focused on intensifying elements of our strategy that have been working, while also moving away from elements of our approach that have proven less effective," the official explained.[/QUOTE]
So anyone up for lynching a few politicians in the street? I'm totally down, I'll get the rope and everything.
Either way though, I cannot believe that no one saw this coming from miles away. I remember posting a comment here some time ago that US Troops will be going in within a few months from our advisory roles inside of Iraq and Turkey, and everyone shook it off as delusional.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49015084]So anyone up for lynching a few politicians in the street? I'm totally down, I'll get the rope and everything.
Either way though, I cannot believe that no one saw this coming from miles away. I remember posting a comment here some time ago that US Troops will be going in within a few months from our advisory roles inside of Iraq and Turkey, and everyone shook it off as delusional.[/QUOTE]
I called it. Everyone said that I was crazy since the US wouldn't start another war in the middle east.
If its 50 spec ops d00ds how many support staff (actually military or private contractors) will need to go with them?
Haven't we been doing Spec Ops raids against ISIS strongholds for some time now?
There are pros and cons to just starting up a war without declaration. The good thing is that they can't try and enact a draft (not that they are crazy enough to try it again anyways), bad thing is it's not necessarily constitutional.
[QUOTE=xamllew;49015103]Haven't we been doing Spec Ops raids against ISIS strongholds for some time now?[/QUOTE]
I think we did one, that was publicized.
[editline]30th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megadave;49015104]There are pros and cons to just starting up a war without declaration. The good thing is that they can't try and enact a draft (not that they are crazy enough to try it again anyways), bad thing is it's [B]not necessarily constitutional[/B].[/QUOTE]
They can do it legally with the correct approvals.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49015104]There are pros and cons to just starting up a war without declaration. The good thing is that they can't try and enact a draft (not that they are crazy enough to try it again anyways), bad thing is it's not necessarily constitutional.[/QUOTE]
Who's to say that since they just skipped the formalities of calling it war they won't just skip the formalities of calling it a draft? lol
Maybe ISIS wouldn't have been a thing if we didn't fuck with other countries.
If they want to be a democracy, they want to have a stable gov't they will fight for it themselves. Instead we go in, leave and then shit falls apart worse then what it was.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;49015084]So anyone up for lynching a few politicians in the street? I'm totally down, I'll get the rope and everything.
Either way though, I cannot believe that no one saw this coming from miles away. I remember posting a comment here some time ago that US Troops will be going in within a few months from our advisory roles inside of Iraq and Turkey, and everyone shook it off as delusional.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people saw it coming. SOF guys are used everywhere. You can pretty much guarantee that when we send people in an "advisory role," that those same guys are going to be doing a bit of their own work on the side.
[editline]30th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=xamllew;49015103]Haven't we been doing Spec Ops raids against ISIS strongholds for some time now?[/QUOTE]
Probably
[QUOTE=MR-X;49015191]Maybe ISIS wouldn't have been a thing if we didn't fuck with other countries.
If they want to be a democracy, they want to have a stable gov't they will fight for it themselves. Instead we go in, leave and then shit falls apart worse then what it was.[/QUOTE]
The Syrian Civil War is a result of the Arab Spring and had very little to do with the outside world.
If anything, ISIS's existence is due to a lack of outside intervention. So much time was spent delaying doing anything decisive in Syria that when we finally got done twiddling our thumbs, most of the so-called 'moderate' rebels that we favored supporting were already dead or enlisted in more extremist regiments that could keep supplies flowing.
Got to keep that war machine turnin.
This whole world is in a whole stage of fuck. Thankfully we got Elon who is trying to get us off of it.
[editline]30th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;49015251]The Syrian Civil War is a result of the Arab Spring and had very little to do with the outside world.
If anything, ISIS's existence is due to a lack of outside intervention. So much time was spent delaying doing anything decisive in Syria that when we finally got done twiddling our thumbs, most of the so-called 'moderate' rebels that we favored supporting were already dead or enlisted in more extremist regiments that could keep supplies flowing.[/QUOTE]
Everything that fucking happened in the Middle East is because of our goddamn CIA operations back during the 60s and 70s.
We need to seriously just stay the fuck out of it. Has there been a single time in the past fifteen years where foreign intervention in the Middle East has come out decently? If we seriously want to help, give aid and shelter to refugees, send medical aid to civilians, and provide observers.
IF we absolutely do need to go in- and we might given ISIS's atrocities- then we need to do it right, with support from the UN, with an international coalition that includes the Gulf States, and with everyone on the same page a la Gulf War I and (arguably) NATO's Yugoslav bombings. No more no-oversight American operations, no more covert bullshit without some sort of international approval, no more unilateral action. It's NEVER works out.
[QUOTE=xamllew;49015103]Haven't we been doing Spec Ops raids against ISIS strongholds for some time now?[/QUOTE]
Yes, but this sounds like they're actually going to station guys there instead of getting in and getting out.
I wonder, will their ops be covert, or will they go in for raids in full gear? Because If I remembered correctly, Spec Ops were already operating prior to 9/11 in Afghanistan.
Like dressing in local fatigues, and blending in.
CNN is playing a highlight reel of times Obama stated that he would not put combat ground forces in Syria.
[editline]30th October 2015[/editline]
This is less than 50 people
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49015101]If its 50 spec ops d00ds how many support staff (actually military or private contractors) will need to go with them?[/QUOTE]
Well that's the thing with Special Forces.
These guys don't necessarily [b]NEED[/b] such support or at least that is what my preconception of ours can do.
Syria is going to end up like the Koreas as this rate, with an American backed rebel government and Russian backed Assad govt.
People again confusing advisers with actual attack forces.
[quote]While the White House has consistently said it would not put U.S. boots on the ground, spokesman Josh Earnest insisted that they will be there in a "train, advise and assist mission" — and not in a combat role.
"It will not be their responsibility to lead the charge up the hill," he said. But he acknowledged they will be in a perilous situation: "There is no denying the amount of risk they are taking on here."
Obama "has been quite clear that there is no military solution to the problems that are plaguing Iraq and Syria — it's a diplomatic one," Earnest said. [/quote]
You really think 50 guys could fight ISIS?
Better our 50 guys then the 50 we trained in Syria and can only account for like, 5-7 alive from the original 50.
[QUOTE=Megadave;49015104]There are pros and cons to just starting up a war without declaration. The good thing is that they can't try and enact a draft (not that they are crazy enough to try it again anyways), bad thing is it's not necessarily constitutional.[/QUOTE]
Do you honestly believe that the US would enact a draft for this shit? We didn't even enact a draft the last time we fought a CONVENTIONAL Military (Saddam). You have nothing to worry about my child, the big boys that volunteer will be taking care of this business (which probably won't pop off like people would believe)
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49017919]Do you honestly believe that the US would enact a draft for this shit? We didn't even enact a draft the last time we fought a CONVENTIONAL Military (Saddam). You have nothing to worry about my child, the big boys that volunteer will be taking care of this business (which probably won't pop off like people would believe)[/QUOTE]
It won't pop off like anything. ISIS are pussies. We might scale up a bit but it'll end soon enough.
[QUOTE=Electrocuter;49015925]People again confusing advisers with actual attack forces.
You really think 50 guys could fight ISIS?[/QUOTE]
Small groups of spec ops are probably be more effective for this sort of thing. ISIS wouldn't have a chance in a toe-to-toe showdown wih a conventional force and they know it, so any sort of large-scale action against them would just drive them underground until we leave again. On the other hand, they aren't going to close up shop for 50 guys, but those 50 guys can do a lot of damage provided they know when and where to strike.
People are seriously confusing small numbers of special forces with conventional occupation and invasion. We had boots on the ground in Somalia without occupying the country. Our intervention in Yugoslavia went similarly.
As far as leaving the Middle East to sort itself out- how's that been going with ISIS so far? The Arab Spring revolutions weren't our doing, they were the result of nascent democracy in action, but the original populist uprisings have been squashed by extremists. Maybe intervention would have helped, maybe it would have made it worse, I can't say; but it's clear that staying hands-off is not going to resolve this.
[QUOTE=Alan Ninja!;49018077]Small groups of spec ops are probably be more effective for this sort of thing. ISIS wouldn't have a chance in a toe-to-toe showdown wih a conventional force and they know it, so any sort of large-scale action against them would just drive them underground until we leave again. On the other hand, they aren't going to close up shop for 50 guys, but those 50 guys can do a lot of damage provided they know when and where to strike.[/QUOTE]
The traditional role of the Special Forces was to go into a hostile area and train up a group of loyal forces among the locals and basically come out with a company sized element lead by a 12-man SF team. Force multiplication is the buzz word they like to use.
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49015091]I called it. Everyone said that I was crazy since the US wouldn't start another war in the middle east.[/QUOTE]
Start? The wars been going on for 4 years
[QUOTE=catbarf;49018848]People are seriously confusing small numbers of special forces with conventional occupation and invasion. We had boots on the ground in Somalia without occupying the country. Our intervention in Yugoslavia went similarly.
As far as leaving the Middle East to sort itself out- how's that been going with ISIS so far? The Arab Spring revolutions weren't our doing, they were the result of nascent democracy in action, but the original populist uprisings have been squashed by extremists. Maybe intervention would have helped, maybe it would have made it worse, I can't say; but it's clear that staying hands-off is not going to resolve this.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2384603&page=1[/url]
You do realize you are seen as a combatant and this will be a war till extinction, right?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];49015448']and (arguably) NATO's Yugoslav bombings.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no, that's a horrible example
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49034386][url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2384603&page=1[/url][/QUOTE]
I saw that when it was new, almost a decade ago now. This kind of thinking is extraordinarily simplistic, and the populist uprisings that comprised the Arab Spring show that there's more to the Middle East than tribalism.
You know, tribalism is just as much a motivator in sub-Saharan Africa as well, but I've yet to see much popular support for the idea that we should just let things like the Rwandan Genocide happen because Hutus and Tutsis want to fight it out. To hear some folks talk, you'd think we're talking about an alien species, not just a different sociological system. Functional democratic states have been constructed from disparate ethnic groups in a number of African countries. You might hear saber-rattling about the election of a Kikuyu president in Kenya, but the fact that people associate with a tribal identity (even tribal identities that have historically warred with one another) hasn't caused complete societal implosion.
Even [i]Somalia[/i] is on its way to becoming a functional state.
Pressfield wasn't even advocating for abandoning the Middle East. He advocated understanding how tribal politics played into regional politics and religious politics, and to avoid pitfalls like assuming that every member of a given ethnic and religious affiliation would be willing to cooperate. He argued against propping up a democracy and leaving it without the proper cultural integration (see: Iraq), not that we ought to throw our hands up and abandon the whole idea and let the repression and genocide continue. And that goes doubly when the alternative is letting ISIS expand unchecked.
[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49034386][url]http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2384603&page=1[/url]
You do realize you are seen as a combatant and this will be a war till extinction, right?[/QUOTE]
If we destroy ISIS they have a much bigger chance of giving up.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.