Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops

[skye]

The White House and the Pentagon have repeatedly ruled out "boots on the ground" in Syria, but Defense Department officials were less certain Thursday on whether U.S. military personnel might be sent to help secure or destroy Syria's chemical weapons.



Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops | Military.com

 

[tinydancer]

They did a study on this a few years ago saying that 75,000 ground troops would be needed just to guard the chemical weapons locations in Syria.

Panetta said that Syria would be 100 times worse than Libya to control in a hearing.

But this all begs the question, how long has the invasion of Syria by America been planned?

ETA: I'd put up 2 years but this study must have taken longer than that.

 

[Katzndogz]

Boots on the ground after obama promised no boots on the ground.

This is going to blow up with a bigger boom than the ill conceived red line throwaway.

 

[tinydancer]

Here ya go...

Obama and Kerry are absolutely bullshitting that there will be no boots on the ground.

Syria's chemical weapons: Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 ground troops to secure facilities | Mail Online

Revealed: Pentagon knew in 2012 that it would take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS to secure Syria's chemical weapons facilities

Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'

 

[Katzndogz]

They did a study on this 2 years ago saying that 75,000 ground troops would be needed just to guard the chemical weapons locations in Syria.

Panetta said that Syria would be 100 times worse than Libya to control in a hearing.

But this all begs the question, how long has the invasion of Syria by America been planned?

None. No plans. Obama doesn't plan. He has hopey changey. Either someone will rescue him or he will point out that he's black and it's all racist.

What's frightening is that the troops will go to Syria with no plan. They will be the targets of all sides and a country whose regime doesn't give a fuck. obama probably has a video squirreled away that he can blame when the body bags roll in.

 

[tyroneweaver]

republicans don't have to do a dang thing, just sit back and let barry handle it

 

[Plasmaball]

ok so should i get my outrage suit on at a hypothetical maybe?

 

[skye]

ok so should i get my outrage suit on at a hypothetical maybe?

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

 

[Plasmaball]

ok so should i get my outrage suit on at a hypothetical maybe?

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well that's plainly obvious, chemical weapons don't move themselves, you know.

 

[Sherry]

ok so should i get my outrage suit on at a hypothetical maybe?

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

Ah, the good old days of a coalition of the willing...not gonna happen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

ok so should i get my outrage suit on at a hypothetical maybe?

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

At any rate, it makes Obama and Kerry look like liars, promising to keep troops out of Syria while engendering a situation that requires it. Geez, I could beat those guys at Connect Four in three moves, with both hands tied behind my back.

 

[Plasmaball]

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

Ah, the good old days of a coalition of the willing...not gonna happen.

then we shouldnt go in...really that simple.

 

[Plasmaball]

Your "may be" could turn out to be an unfortunately reality which would involved the US in another quagmire from which it can't extract itself.

Now is the time to start questioning this potential strategy, not when it's too late.

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

At any rate, it makes Obama and Kerry look like liars, promising to keep troops out of Syria while engendering a situation that requires it. Geez, I could beat those guys at Connect Four in three moves, with both hands tied behind my back.

there is a difference between invading and securing. People are less likely to be upset with the idea of removing weapons in this fashion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

loony tunes

there will be not invasion and there will be no "security missions"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

let me know when it happens...A coalition to secure these weapons is something i would not be against, but i dont want it to be just us.

At any rate, it makes Obama and Kerry look like liars, promising to keep troops out of Syria while engendering a situation that requires it. Geez, I could beat those guys at Connect Four in three moves, with both hands tied behind my back.

there is a difference between invading and securing. People are less likely to be upset with the idea of removing weapons in this fashion.

Ya cause Assad wants 75000 foreign troops in his Country. And AQ of course won't do anything, nor the other rebels.

Wait, The Russians will offer to do it and then use those 75000 troops to crush the rebels.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So now we can send large numbers of troops into an enemy country under the "pretense" of securing rogue weapons, and if then we decide to attack...we can spring on the bastards.

 

[Plasmaball]

At any rate, it makes Obama and Kerry look like liars, promising to keep troops out of Syria while engendering a situation that requires it. Geez, I could beat those guys at Connect Four in three moves, with both hands tied behind my back.

there is a difference between invading and securing. People are less likely to be upset with the idea of removing weapons in this fashion.

Ya cause Assad wants 75000 foreign troops in his Country. And AQ of course won't do anything, nor the other rebels.

Wait, The Russians will offer to do it and then use those 75000 troops to crush the rebels.

shrug....so what...Assad already agreed to give them up. He will listen to Russia.
You are arguing against something i never mentioned.

 

[percysunshine]

Of course Obama is going to put US troops on the ground in Syria. How else is he going to invade Israel to free the Palestinians?

 

[Desperado]

Why do they have to be American boots since Putin put Russia in the forefront?