PDA

View Full Version : U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria



jimnyc
10-27-2015, 05:13 PM
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said Tuesday that the U.S. will begin "direct action on the ground" against ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria, aiming to intensify pressure on the militants as progress against them remains elusive.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL, or conducting such missions directly whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground," Carter said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services committee, using an alternative name for the militant group.

Carter pointed to last week's rescue operation with Kurdish forces in northern Iraq to free hostages held by ISIS.

Carter and Pentagon officials initially refused to characterize the rescue operation as U.S. boots on the ground. However, Carter said last week that the military expects "more raids of this kind" and that the rescue mission "represents a continuation of our advise and assist mission."

This may mean some American soldiers "will be in harm's way, no question about it," Carter said last week.

After months of denying that U.S. troops would be in any combat role in Iraq, Carter late last week in a response to a question posed by NBC News, also acknowledged that the situation U.S. soldiers found themselves in during the raid in Hawija was combat.

"This is combat and things are complicated," Carter said.

During Tuesday's Senate hearing, Carter said Wheeler "was killed in combat."

White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz on Tuesday said the administration has "no intention of long term ground combat". He added that U.S. forces will continue to robustly train, advise and assist.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-carter-direct-u-s-action-ground-iraq-syria-n452131

Christie Brinkley
10-27-2015, 05:59 PM
An attempt to keep up the narrative of wanting to destroy ISIS.

hjmick
10-27-2015, 06:04 PM
Oh goodie! Another war.


Thanks President Obama!

jimnyc
10-27-2015, 06:09 PM
An attempt to keep up the narrative of wanting to destroy ISIS.

So you are now saying that Russia's goal in Syria is only a narrative? Do you think they have any goal of going after ISIS?

Christie Brinkley
10-27-2015, 06:11 PM
So you are now saying that Russia's goal in Syria is only a narrative? Do you think they have any goal of going after ISIS?
Narrative= information war for the moral high ground+domestic support for foreign policy.

Russias goal is to destroy ISIS, that in itself is popular in securing the moral high ground as well as domestic support.

hjmick
10-27-2015, 06:21 PM
So you are now saying that Russia's goal in Syria is only a narrative? Do you think they have any goal of going after ISIS?


They're there to preserve their naval bases...



In the past year and a half, Russia has intervened militarily in two countries, Ukraine and Syria, where revolution and extreme political polarization threatened the governments of pro-Russian leaders. And that’s pretty much where the similarities between the campaigns end, except for one other commonality: Both Syria and Ukraine are home to Russian naval bases—in Tartus and Sevastopol, respectively.

Ports, and especially warm-water ports, have long played an important role in Russian foreign policy. Russia isn’t landlocked, of course, but Europe-facing ports such as Arkhangelsk and St. Petersburg were historically ice-locked for part of the year before the advent of the icebreaker in the 20th century (Russia’s port at Murmansk is ice-free, but it was built in 1915, and the Russian port at Vladivostok is on the Pacific). Moreover, none of these ports, even when open for business, allow for easy access to the bustling Mediterranean Sea. This has left Russia with an economic and military incentive to expand toward warmer waters. Beginning just before the reign of Peter the Great in the late 17th century, Russia fought a series of wars with the Ottoman Empire in a quest to establish a warm-water port off the Black Sea. By 1812, Russia had managed to secure control of the entire northern coast of the Black Sea.



The Link Between Putin’s Military Campaigns in Syria and Ukraine (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/navy-base-syria-crimea-putin/408694/)


If Assad falls, odds are they lose their base in Syria.

jimnyc
10-27-2015, 06:36 PM
Narrative= information war for the moral high ground+domestic support for foreign policy.

Russias goal is to destroy ISIS, that in itself is popular in securing the moral high ground as well as domestic support.

In either place, eradicating ISIS should be enough, IMO. But each country should also not have to sacrifice crazy numbers. Now THIS is a time where I believe a coalition would be not only successful, but fair. There is NO good reason for not taking out ISIS.

Christie Brinkley
10-27-2015, 06:53 PM
In either place, eradicating ISIS should be enough, IMO. But each country should also not have to sacrifice crazy numbers. Now THIS is a time where I believe a coalition would be not only successful, but fair. There is NO good reason for not taking out ISIS.
You have to be in the mind set of the anglo-american/Israeli/Saudi Arabian/Turkish establishment who wants to remove Assad. They will not destroy one of their best hopes of doing that. When ISIS has fulfilled their usefulness then they will be destroyed most likely with US/NATO troops on the ground probably after another terror attack which was allowed to happen by western secret services has taken place (as they need public opinion the wage a ground war). The invasion will also be co-ordinated by Saudi Arabia and Israel in the south.

aboutime
10-27-2015, 08:07 PM
Oh goodie! Another war.


Thanks President Obama!


It's NOT another war. It has been going on for more than a decade, and Obama has been denying it to preserve his FALSE LEGACY of getting us out of Iraq...as he promised before the Dumb Voters believed him.

ISIS..like it or not, is a real threat to YOU and every American. You can pretend like Obama, or get informed, and begin telling yourself the TRUTH.

hjmick
10-27-2015, 08:16 PM
It's NOT another war. It has been going on for more than a decade, and Obama has been denying it to preserve his FALSE LEGACY of getting us out of Iraq...as he promised before the Dumb Voters believed him.

ISIS..like it or not, is a real threat to YOU and every American. You can pretend like Obama, or get informed, and begin telling yourself the TRUTH.


Don't fucking lecture me, I know what's what. If you can't read sarcasm, that's your problem. Go piss up a rope.

aboutime
10-27-2015, 09:24 PM
Don't fucking lecture me, I know what's what. If you can't read sarcasm, that's your problem. Go piss up a rope.


Forgive me for bothering to think you were smarter than that.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
10-27-2015, 10:38 PM
They're there to preserve their naval bases...






The Link Between Putin’s Military Campaigns in Syria and Ukraine (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/navy-base-syria-crimea-putin/408694/)


If Assad falls, odds are they lose their base in Syria.

Historically true and yes Russia has its own interests at heart -the warm water naval base.
However, Putin knows the threat a muslim Caliphate in the Middle East would be and that is exactly what ISIS is going for...
Without Syria--the Caliphate as Islamic prophecy envisions , can not be birthed.
And thusly no prophesied magic Imam appears.
So Russia has its agenda about the bases but also Putin/Russia has its own muzzie problems at home.
Putin truly hitting ISIS PISSES OFF THE BAMABOY--AND THAT IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING FOR THIS NATION'S BEST INTERESTS IMHO.
Simply because the obama never has our best interests at heart-he serves Allah first..-Tyr

Gunny
10-28-2015, 09:23 AM
So you are now saying that Russia's goal in Syria is only a narrative? Do you think they have any goal of going after ISIS?


Narrative= information war for the moral high ground+domestic support for foreign policy.

Russias goal is to destroy ISIS, that in itself is popular in securing the moral high ground as well as domestic support.


In either place, eradicating ISIS should be enough, IMO. But each country should also not have to sacrifice crazy numbers. Now THIS is a time where I believe a coalition would be not only successful, but fair. There is NO good reason for not taking out ISIS.

You're BOTH correct. Russia has a vested interest in Syria and has as long as I've been alive and can remember.

Taking out ISIS by whatever means is a good thing. Before ISIS was al Qaeda, a radical Sunni sect designed solely to stop the Shia. Other side: Hezboallah, Hamas and Barrack O-blah-blah.

Neither solves the war between the Shia and Sunni. Nor does it solve the problem of the people making a living off of war and those that provide them the means. Bet your butt almost EVERY weapon they are using was sold to them by Russia or the Chinese. I've never seen a Syrian nor an Iranian with an M-4 or driving US tanks. And don't forget the French Mirage jets Syria flies.

Russia's goal is money. Period. They can't even afford themselves.

revelarts
10-28-2015, 09:40 AM
seems we wouldn't need U.S. troops if the present "multi national coalition" of anti ISIS ground troops are aided by cutting off ISIS's supplies.

ISIS isn't making ammo, tanks, trucks, 50 cals, fuel or growing crops to feed Syrian fighters.
So where's it coming from?
If Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, the U.S., NATO etc are ALL against ISIS in Syria who exactly is keeping this military afloat?

we put sanctions on Iraq, Iran and Russia and they feel it.
Cuba has people driving 1957 chevys but ISIS has new Ford military vehicles?

Gunny
10-28-2015, 10:38 AM
seems we wouldn't need U.S. troops if the present "multi national coalition" of anti ISIS ground troops are aided by cutting off ISIS's supplies.

ISIS isn't making ammo, tanks, trucks, 50 cals, fuel or growing crops to feed Syrian fighters.
So where's it coming from?
If Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, the U.S., NATO etc are ALL against ISIS in Syria who exactly is keeping this military afloat?

we put sanctions on Iraq, Iran and Russia and they feel it.
Cuba has people driving 1957 chevys but ISIS has new Ford military vehicles?

Seems to me, we need to get in or out. This is nothing more than playing catch up. If we're going to dominate the region, then let's. If we aren't, then quit wasting our personnel and resources. The name of THIS particular game is called "Half-assing It".

revelarts
10-29-2015, 10:45 AM
ISIS supply lines FYI

...ISIS’ supply lines run precisely where Syrian and Iraqi air power cannot go. To the north and into NATO-member Turkey, and to the southwest into US allies Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Beyond these borders exists a logistical network that spans a region including both Eastern Europe and North Africa.Terrorists and weapons left over from NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 were promptly sent to Turkey and then onto Syria – coordinated by US State Department officials and intelligence agencies in Benghazi – a terrorist hotbed for decades.The London Telegraph would report in their 2013 article, “CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html),” that:
[CNN] said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.
Weapons have also come from Eastern Europe, with the New York Times reporting in 2013 in their article, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From C.I.A. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html?_r=0),” that:
From offices at secret locations, American intelligence officers have helped the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive, according to American officials speaking on the condition of anonymity.
And while Western media sources continuously refer to ISIS and other factions operating under the banner of Al Qaeda as “rebels” or “moderates,” it is clear that if billions of dollars in weapons were truly going to “moderates,” they, not ISIS would be dominating the battlefield.Recent revelations have revealed (http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/25/washington-confesses-to-backing-questionable-actors-in-syria/) that as early as 2012 the United States Department of Defense not only anticipated the creation of a “Salafist Principality” straddling Syria and Iraq precisely where ISIS now exists, it welcomed it eagerly and contributed to the circumstances required to bring it about.Just How Extensive Are ISIS’ Supply Lines? While many across the West play willfully ignorant as to where ISIS truly gets their supplies from in order to maintain its impressive fighting capacity, some journalists have traveled to the region and have video taped and reported on the endless convoys of trucks supplying the terrorist army.Were these trucks traveling to and from factories in seized ISIS territory deep within Syrian and Iraqi territory? No. They were traveling from deep within Turkey, crossing the Syrian border with absolute impunity, and headed on their way with the implicit protection of nearby Turkish military forces. Attempts by Syria to attack these convoys and the terrorists flowing in with them have been met by Turkish air defenses.Germany’s international broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW) published the first video report from a major Western media outlet illustrating that ISIS is supplied not by “black market oil” or “hostage ransoms” but billions of dollars worth of supplies carried into Syria across NATO member Turkey’s borders via hundreds of trucks a day.

The report titled, “‘IS’ supply channels through Turkey, (http://www.dw.de/is-supply-channels-through-turkey/av-18091048)” confirms what has been reported by geopolitical analysts (http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/nato-using-al-qaeda-rat-lines-to-flood.html) since at least as early as 2011 – that ISIS subsides on immense, multi-national state sponsorship, including, obviously, Turkey itself.Looking at maps of ISIS-held territory and reading action reports of its offensive maneuvers throughout the region and even beyond, one might imagine hundreds of trucks a day would be required to maintain this level of fighting capacity. One could imagine similar convoys crossing into Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Similar convoys are likely passing into Syria from Jordan.In all, considering the realities of logistics and their timeless importance to military campaigns throughout human history, there is no other plausible explanation to ISIS’s ability to wage war within Syria and Iraq besides immense resources being channeled to it from abroad.If an army marches on its stomach, and ISIS’ stomachs are full of NATO and Persian Gulf State supplies, ISIS will continue to march long and hard. The key to breaking the back of ISIS, is breaking the back of its supply lines. To do that however, and precisely why the conflict has dragged on for so long, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and others would have to eventually secure the borders and force ISIS to fight within Turkish, Jordanian, and Saudi territory – a difficult scenario to implement as nations like Turkey have created defacto buffer zones within Syrian territory which would require a direct military confrontation with Turkey itself to eliminate.....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726