U.S. to Begin 'Direct Action on the Ground' in Iraq, Syria

[jimnyc]

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/...-syria-n452131

[Christie Brinkley]

An attempt to keep up the narrative of wanting to destroy ISIS.

[hjmick]

Oh goodie! Another war.


Thanks President Obama!

[jimnyc]

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]

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]

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


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

[jimnyc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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






The Link Between Putin’s Military Campaigns in Syria and Ukraine


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]

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]

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]

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".