Posted on Oct 30, 2015
U.S. to send dozens of special forces to Syria as advisors. Your thoughts?
14.5K
113
48
9
9
0
The United States will deploy dozens of special operations troops to northern Syria from next month to advise opposition forces in their fight against Islamic State, a major policy shift for President Barack Obama and a step he has long resisted to avoid getting dragged into another war in the Middle East.
The planned deployment, along with the U.S. decision this week to include Iran in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, represents the biggest change in the United States' Syria policy since it began a bombing campaign against Islamic State targets there in September 2014.
Announcing the measure on Friday, the White House said the troops would be on a mission to "train, advise and assist" and would number fewer than 50. Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to give details about their exact role.
The decision by Obama, deeply averse to committing troops to unpopular wars in the Middle East, would mark the first sustained U.S. troop presence in Syria and raise the risk of American casualties, although U.S. officials stressed the forces were not meant to engage in front-line combat.
"This is a dangerous place on the globe and they are at risk, and there's no denying that," said Earnest, who repeatedly rejected the idea that the deployment would constitute a ground combat mission, which Obama has long rejected as a solution in Syria.
Earnest said the new mission in Syria was open ended and did not rule out the possibility of sending additional special forces troops into Iraq. Obama spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Friday about the fight against Islamic State, Earnest said.
The Obama administration is under pressure to ramp up America's effort against Islamic State, particularly after the militant group captured the Iraqi city of Ramadi in May and following the failure of a U.S. military program to train and arm thousands of Syrian rebels.
The planned deployment adds to an increasingly volatile conflict in Syria, where Russia and Iran have increased up their military support for President Bashar al-Assad's fight against rebels in the four-and-a-half year civil war.
Russia said when it began air strikes last month that it would also target the Islamic State militant group, but its planes have hit other rebel groups opposed to Assad, including groups backed by Washington.
The decision to send U.S. special forces to Syria will put U.S. forces "in harm's way," U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Friday, adding he did not rule out the possibility of further special forces deployments to Syria.
This month a U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq participating in a Kurdish-led mission to rescue Islamic State hostages.
He we go again , they are calling the Troops "Advisers." Where have we heard that before?
The planned deployment, along with the U.S. decision this week to include Iran in diplomatic efforts to end the conflict, represents the biggest change in the United States' Syria policy since it began a bombing campaign against Islamic State targets there in September 2014.
Announcing the measure on Friday, the White House said the troops would be on a mission to "train, advise and assist" and would number fewer than 50. Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to give details about their exact role.
The decision by Obama, deeply averse to committing troops to unpopular wars in the Middle East, would mark the first sustained U.S. troop presence in Syria and raise the risk of American casualties, although U.S. officials stressed the forces were not meant to engage in front-line combat.
"This is a dangerous place on the globe and they are at risk, and there's no denying that," said Earnest, who repeatedly rejected the idea that the deployment would constitute a ground combat mission, which Obama has long rejected as a solution in Syria.
Earnest said the new mission in Syria was open ended and did not rule out the possibility of sending additional special forces troops into Iraq. Obama spoke to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi on Friday about the fight against Islamic State, Earnest said.
The Obama administration is under pressure to ramp up America's effort against Islamic State, particularly after the militant group captured the Iraqi city of Ramadi in May and following the failure of a U.S. military program to train and arm thousands of Syrian rebels.
The planned deployment adds to an increasingly volatile conflict in Syria, where Russia and Iran have increased up their military support for President Bashar al-Assad's fight against rebels in the four-and-a-half year civil war.
Russia said when it began air strikes last month that it would also target the Islamic State militant group, but its planes have hit other rebel groups opposed to Assad, including groups backed by Washington.
The decision to send U.S. special forces to Syria will put U.S. forces "in harm's way," U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Friday, adding he did not rule out the possibility of further special forces deployments to Syria.
This month a U.S. soldier was killed in Iraq participating in a Kurdish-led mission to rescue Islamic State hostages.
He we go again , they are calling the Troops "Advisers." Where have we heard that before?
Posted in these groups: 
Military Advisor
War on Terror
Military Advisor War on Terror
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 28
6
6
0
U.S. officials disclosed plans on Friday to station the first American boots on the ground in Syria in the war against Islamic State fighters, saying dozens of special forces would be sent as advisers to groups fighting against the jihadists." Great! Why not publish when their aircraft will arrive on the end of runway so the ISIS fighters can get properly set up for a rousing arrival. Perhaps an open house at the FOB after it is established -- talking never hurts... This CinC and his staff makes the Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight look like an Olympic Marksmanship Team. Call them Advisors -- I don't care what you call them as long as you don't call the enemy and announce their arrival -- Opps to late. I am surprised they did not text Osama before the raid with a text that said "You Gonna Die in exactly 12 hours or as soon as we can land in your compound!" We have now announced they are coming in -- we better have a great plan for getting them out incase all hell breaks lose. And how are you going to keep the Russians from hitting them since they will be advising the very fighters that the Russians keep bombing on behalf of Assad.
What ever happened to operational secrecy. Eisenhower, Bradly and Patton must be spinning....
What ever happened to operational secrecy. Eisenhower, Bradly and Patton must be spinning....
(6)
(0)
Sgt David G Duchesneau
Colonel, I think we are all shaking our heads. Everything you just said makes perfectly good sense. Oh, what a fool I am? We are not suppose to make sense anymore. It must be part of that "Rules of Engagement" shit! You are right, let's announce everything so that the bastards can be ready for whatever the US does. What a bunch of asshole!
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Groups of SF were sent to Vietnam long before the war started, to be advisors. Look at how long they were there after the war started. They weren't advisors anymore. They assisted the ARVN in combat and went on patrols to search out the enemy. I was TDY with the SF for a month. We took them and the ARVN out in the boonies for patrols to search out the trails and tunnels. They weren't supposed to make contact, but they did almost every time. They found out one of the ARVN had a relative in the NVA and he was tipping off his relative. The last patrol he went on, a firefight ensued and the ARVN got shot in the butt. The SF doctor at the SF camp dug all around that traitors bullet hole without any pain killer. You could hear the ARVN screaming bloody murder for a couple of hours. The doc was kinda weird himself. He had three large glass jars full of VC ears. He asked me if I wanted one to wear around my neck. I told him no, of course. Weird fking war.
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
We have had enough boots on the ground. When is it up to someone else to be responsible for themselves. At some point there needs to be personal accountability for one's self. We will eventually run ourselves into the ground with nothing to show for it because we will never be appreciated for our efforts.
(6)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SSG Carlos Lane - Yea. But our debt is held by a country that cannot call it in. So for now they will continue to push it off
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Another perspective though is the precedent America has set over the past century of not being the nation to turn from atrocity. From WW1 onward. WW1 our hand was forced to action as well as WW2. The undereducated citizens of the world though now shout and complain about how America starts wars, perpetuates wars, etc... But they don't understand the importance.
Look at this specific issue. IS. How many countered intervened when America said we were sitting out initially? None. We state we're going to start air operations. How many followed us. Nations of the world now only act when America does. Not only that but look at post WW2 Europe. We (America) allowed those nations to rebuild due to our military might protecting them. The years to follow and even now the reason those nations can keep a small defense spending budget is because they are sheltered by the what I like to call it the "American Military Might Umbrella". Or "freedombrella" Euoore has known an unprescedented economic growth over the last century as well as a unprecedented time of peace within its continent (relatively) under the protection of America.
Should it be this way? Should we be responsible as "world police" ? No probably not, but we're Americans and now that belief is in our blood. We can't turn away.
Look at this specific issue. IS. How many countered intervened when America said we were sitting out initially? None. We state we're going to start air operations. How many followed us. Nations of the world now only act when America does. Not only that but look at post WW2 Europe. We (America) allowed those nations to rebuild due to our military might protecting them. The years to follow and even now the reason those nations can keep a small defense spending budget is because they are sheltered by the what I like to call it the "American Military Might Umbrella". Or "freedombrella" Euoore has known an unprescedented economic growth over the last century as well as a unprecedented time of peace within its continent (relatively) under the protection of America.
Should it be this way? Should we be responsible as "world police" ? No probably not, but we're Americans and now that belief is in our blood. We can't turn away.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google