US deploying more than 50 combat troops on the gound, to act unilaterally in Iraq and Syria

[morningfog]

The United States said on Tuesday it was deploying an elite new force of special operations troops to Iraq to conduct raids, free hostages, capture Islamic State leaders and carry out "unilateral operations" in neighboring Syria.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter offered few details on the new expeditionary group. It is separate from a previously announced deployment of up to 50 U.S. special operations troops in Syria to coordinate on the ground with U.S.-backed rebels fighting in a civil war raging since 2011.

Carter said the new force will be larger than the one being sent into Syria, but did not specify how many troops it will include.

The Pentagon chief said the new deployment of this "specialized expeditionary targeting force" was being carried out in coordination with the government of Iraq and would aid Iraqi government security forces and Kurdish peshmerga forces.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/01/us-mideast-crisis-usa-military-idUSKBN0TK50G20151201#w0qr4m4RxZzxsCx7.99

The mission creeps, the promises exposed as lies.

[Paper Roses]

1. 50 here, 50 there, soon to be...........

I can't stand it any more.
BS on all sides. We are at risk from wherever we stand.
What a world. Good thing I am old.
My(and your) kids will suffer.

Who really thinks this will end in our favor?
No-one I know.

[840high]

6. No one I know.

[atreides1]

2. And if just one gets captured?

Then what?

[tkmorris]

12. Then the American Public will demand we send 100,000 to avenge him

Either way it's a win for the MIC.

[GreatGazoo]

3. I love how they keep calling Syria a "civil war"

Even in this sentence: "...deployment of up to 50 U.S. special operations troops in Syria to coordinate on the ground with U.S.-backed rebels fighting in a civil war"

civ·il war
noun
noun: civil war; plural noun: civil wars

a war between citizens of the same country.

It is a bit like calling a Roman-style orgy a "long term monogamous relationship."

[jeff47]

7. It is a civil war. With lots of outside countries now involved in it.

It's a 3-sided civil war between Assad, ISIS and Anti-Assad/Anti-ISIS rebels.

The fact that other countries decided to get involved and complicate the civil war does not suddenly make it not a civil war.

[TwilightGardener]

4. The only forces who should be on the ground in Iraq

should be those who call in airstrikes, and those who support/rescue those who call in airstrikes. Period. Why Obama is allowing a new ground war is fucking beyond me. Why do we need to "rescue hostages"? Are they Americans? Why do we need to "conduct raids" or capture leaders? Just bomb the shit out of them once their positions are known! Had we been doing that for the past year, ISIS would be over. Sometimes I wonder if many, many people in our government don't want ISIS to be over--at least not until KBR and Lockheed and General Dynamics, etc., are getting tons of new contracts and sales.

[951-Riverside]

5. Now that John McCain's ISIS friends have slaughtered the local populations, destroyed any resistance

...and moved on, our guys can take control of those devastated areas without worrying about getting attacked and business interests can start with various development projects.

#Colonialism

[Solly Mack]

8. Uh...fuck it. Forget it.

Damn.

[DebbieCDC]

9. They need to go back to the '60s and look up "mission creep"

Vietnam

Afghanistan

Now Syria

[bvar22]

10. 50 Combat Troops in that area...

is 50 Combat Troops too many.

Pretty soon, they will need another "surge", and more armed "contractors" as this regional, tribal war spins out of control.


There is NO WAY we can "WIN" this,
All we can do is get more people killed, which turns into multiple "terrorists" who hate the US for our freedom to kill them and their families and neighbors without consequence.
.
.
.

but the War Profiteers will make another few BILLIONS.

[Kaleva]

11. Cue 'Rat Patrol' intro.