We predicted earlier this week President Obama’s hand would be forced by SecDef Ash Carter’s statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee. And so it’s happened. Yesterday, Barack Obama announced we’re sending in a force to fight ISIS — 50 U.S. Special Operations warriors.
As reported by Fox News:
President Obama has authorized sending dozens of Special Operations Forces to Syria to help advise local ground troops and coalition efforts in the fight against the Islamic State, officials said Friday.
The decision comes after administration officials earlier this week said they were looking at moving U.S. troops closer to the front lines in the anti-ISIS fight, as part of a broader effort to recharge the struggling campaign.
The deployment marks the first time U.S. troops will be working openly on the ground in Syria. A senior administration official called it a “small” deployment, involving “fewer than 50” Special Ops Forces to northern Syria.
Several other steps were also announced Friday, including a new potential deployment to Iraq.
According to the official, the administration is working with the Iraqi government to set up a “Special Operations Force (SOF) task force to further enhance our ability to target ISIL leaders and networks.” The official also says the U.S. will be sending additional aircraft, including F-15 fighters and A-10s, to the Incirlik air base in Turkey.
I’m confused. Whom, exactly, are these special operations forces supposed to “advise” in Syria — the four to five fellas remaining out of the 54 that were trained with $45 million of taxpayer funds? And does anyone realize the complexity of the Syrian battlespace? You’ve got Russian ground troops along with Russian fighter and helicopter attack forces; Iranian Quds forces; Hezbollah; and, as we shared with you, Cuban special operations forces. That, along with Al Nusra Front (al-Qaeda affiliated) and ISIS fighters.
The Syrian rebels who were trained and armed are being decimated by the Russian-backed force. Does anyone know the Russian troop strength on the ground in Syria?
Oh and why did we just tell the enemy we’re sending 50 troops into that zone? There’s a reason why the Obama administration makes such pronouncements: the facade of doing something when nothing will be done.
ISIS has not been degraded, destroyed or defeated, and I can’t fathom how a deployment of 50 or so — what happened to the previous groups deployed? — will make a difference. I completely understand deploying F-15s and A-10s into the theater, but if our troops are only there to advise, then who’s calling in the strikes?
For those who understand history, this is how the morass that came to be known as Vietnam began — U.S. Army Special Forces advisors. Matter of fact, President Kennedy created the U.S. Special Forces just for this mission.
Ladies and Gents, we’re way beyond Foreign Internal Defense (FID). The mission for special operators is now direct action and we can’t achieve any goals and objectives with 50 warriors on the ground. Mind you, they’re exceptional, but in the calculus of the battlefield and offensive operations, one needs a 3:1 ratio. In Vietnam, we even had a serious technological advantage over the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), but it didn’t matter in the end.
This is about strategy and rules of engagement. The Kurds, Jordanians, Iraqis, Egyptians and Israelis are not looking for advice and assistance; they want to be part of a coalition that will achieve victory, one that will fight. And this is not what we’re hearing from President Obama, who’s struggling to define combat. Too bad all of this would’ve been solved had Obama listened to military commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan rather than General Valerie Jarrett.
And let me remind y’all of something, when Obama was asked about the failure of his “plan” to train Syrian rebels, he responded to Steve Croft on “60 Minutes” that it was something he didn’t want to do. I want to know one thing: is this something Barack Obama wants to do or just feels forced to do? There’s a big difference, because if this fails and American warriors are dragged through streets, like we saw after Bill Clinton’s decision to not fully support the Mogadishu raid with AC-130 gunships and deploy them in daylight. The rules of engagement and restrictions due to “collateral damage” had adverse effects. If something goes “south,” will Obama come back on TV and said this was something he did not want to do?
This is not a training mission. This is not about advising or assisting. There’s only one solution for ISIS and that is to kill them. That is a clear military solution. That has not been and is not happening. This is mission creep because we’re just throwing out numbers, not defined mission sets and objectives. If there is no strategy, then don’t send in our men and women unnecessarily. And what are the CSAR assets and protocols in place? If you don’t know what CSAR is, look it up, or ask SecDef Carter.
This is just a band-aid on a sucking chest wound and the LAST thing I EVER want to see are our combat warriors being used like pawns in a very dangerous game by inept and incompetent folks. History is sadly repeating itself.