As many may have keenly observed, the recent filmed hostage rescue of 69 ISIS captives in Iraq may have been a grand attempt at showing that the US was doing something against ISIS (in the face of Russia bombing the crap out of them).
It may also have been another sign of mission creep- there were no “boots on the ground”as long as US soldiers were apparently just advising other factions and only zipped in and out of combat regions.
The American war machine’s FIRST casualty in Syria occurred during that fateful hostage rescue, in a firefight in which the
adviser” took part. This is hardly the behavior of an “adviser”, and it is questionable why these men were placed in such close proximity to conflict if they were not meant to partake in it; it is questionable how they managed to film themselves leading the hostages to safety if they did not partake in it. Even so, the US would still claim that this was not a case of “boots on the ground”. I had earlier asked the following:
“So, were there “boots on the ground” and American-hostage-rescuing heroes? Or were there “no boots on the ground” and American advisers taking credit for a Kurdish-fought and led operation?
It seems that the answer was the first option, because “all of a sudden”, “out of the blue”, in a completely “unexpected” turn of events, Obama is hinting to us that he’s going to officially send in “boots on the ground”. The Pentagon, sick of having to pretend that there were no boots on the ground, has revealed in leaks to the media that up to 50 Spec Ops soldiers will be deployed inside Syria. These men ostentatiously are “not meant to engage in front-line combat but rather to advise and assist moderate rebels” though as the hostage rescue should prove, “not meant to engage” seems to be Newspeak for “send them to die”.
These will apparently be logistics Spec Ops who would “ensure that weapons and other supplies are delivered to the moderate forces whom the United States supports”… as opposed to ISIS and the extremists, who seem to be one of the bigger beneficiaries of US military aid.
U.S. antiwar group Peace Action stated that the news was “predictable as it is disappointing” :
“We should know by now that the first law of military conflicts is escalation,” said Jon Rainwater, a spokesperson for the group. “That’s why sending these troops into battle should trouble all Americans. With the ‘no boots on the ground’ promise broken there’s no telling how many U.S. troops will ultimately be sent to Iraq and Syria.”
It should be noted that this news comes as yet another broken promise from Obama who had previously said this:
‘I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria.’
Another interesting fact is that this change of heart comes as Russia is claiming to have destroyed nearly all of ISIS’s armaments in over 1600 strikes. 15 months of complaining about how hard it was to kill ISIS suddenly changed to ordering “boots on the ground” mere weeks of Russian involvement- whether these men will help (so they can claim credit) or hinder (so that they can still take out Assad) Russian strikes is debatable.
“Over a year into the U.S.-led bombing campaign what have we accomplished?” asked Rainwater. “The United States has spent over $4.75 billion on over 6,059 airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Watching the tragic refugee crisis spreading, we know that more bombing isn’t making the Syrian people any safer. And as the United States drops thousands of bombs, angering thousands of people in two Middle Eastern nations, it’s not making the American people any safer either. On the contrary, a U.S.-led attack in Syria, with the inevitable civilian casualties, strengthens recruitment for ISIS. Adding U.S. ground troops is just throwing gasoline on the fire. Instead, we need sustained diplomacy to end the Syrian civil war and we need to significantly increase humanitarian aid for the victims of the conflict.”
Obama also approved sending a dozen A-10 attack aircraft a dozen F-15 fighter jets to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey.
Sources: Common Dreams, Al Jazeera, Millitary, Telegraph, Express
This Article () is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.
