Securing Syria's Weapons May Require US Troops

[skye]

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.

That is so naive.

History has proved you are wrong and you are drawing a false distinction.

Whenever the US has entered a country to "secure" something , as I said before, a quagmire with unexpected results has eventuated, usually to the detriment of the countries and to the US.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm sure the Saudi mercenaries will be happy to take a break while the process of accounting for and destroying all the chemical weapons is occurring. Have they decided who gets to govern Syria when the dust clears ? Seems I remember something about exit strategies being important.

 

[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.

That is so naive.

History has proved you are wrong and you are drawing a false distinction.

Whenever the US has entered a country to "secure" something , as I said before, a quagmire with unexpected results has eventuated, usually to the detriment of the countries and to the US.

shrug...you are going to have to get those weapons somehow. nothing is ever perfect.

And no its not naive, its logic, I know a dirty word for people.

 

[R.C. Christian]

So, US troops will be fighting working with terrorists on the ground? Sounds like a great plan. I'm sure they'll all appreciate that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Let me put it this way. A gun never fires half cocked.

 

[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.

Let me put it this way. A gun never fires half cocked.

neat! but i am talking about public perception, not what could happen regardless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

Let me put it this way. A gun never fires half cocked.

neat! but i am talking about public perception, not what could happen regardless.

Well public perception on this is overly negative. If one American boot disturbs one grain of dirt on Syrian soil, that is a broken promise, regardless of the penultimate outcome.

 

[dilloduck]

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

That is so naive.

History has proved you are wrong and you are drawing a false distinction.

Whenever the US has entered a country to "secure" something , as I said before, a quagmire with unexpected results has eventuated, usually to the detriment of the countries and to the US.

shrug...you are going to have to get those weapons somehow. nothing is ever perfect.

And no its not naive, its logic, I know a dirty word for people.

you are going to have to get those weapons somehow

Who exactly is "you" ?

Would that be similar to the "you" who is going to pay for Obamacare ?

 

[SFC Ollie]

No American military personnel in Syria..........

No ifs, ands. or buts....

We have no friends there.

Let the ME and Russia handle it....

 

[Plasmaball]

Let me put it this way. A gun never fires half cocked.

neat! but i am talking about public perception, not what could happen regardless.

Well public perception on this is overly negative. If one American boot disturbs one grain of dirt on Syrian soil, that is a broken promise, regardless of the penultimate outcome.

yes under the idea of invading its negative..

 

[Plasmaball]

That is so naive.

History has proved you are wrong and you are drawing a false distinction.

Whenever the US has entered a country to "secure" something , as I said before, a quagmire with unexpected results has eventuated, usually to the detriment of the countries and to the US.

shrug...you are going to have to get those weapons somehow. nothing is ever perfect.

And no its not naive, its logic, I know a dirty word for people.

you are going to have to get those weapons somehow

Who exactly is "you" ?

Would that be similar to the "you" who is going to pay for Obamacare ?

the world? its a general statement

 

[georgephillip]

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.

12 years, at least, according to Wesley:

"In Clark's book, Winning Modern Wars, published in 2003, he describes his conversation with a military officer in the Pentagon shortly after 9/11 regarding a plan to attack seven Middle Eastern countries in five years: 'As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.'"

Wesley Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tinydancer]

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.

That is so naive.

History has proved you are wrong and you are drawing a false distinction.

Whenever the US has entered a country to "secure" something , as I said before, a quagmire with unexpected results has eventuated, usually to the detriment of the countries and to the US.

Here's Panetta's take. Check the date:

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of Assad would present a scenario “100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya.”

In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research facilities, “The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,” the document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report.

75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls ? RT News

 

[skye]

Dan Kaszeta, a London-based security consultant and former officer in the US Chemical Corps says: ""You can't do it without boots on the ground. You need troops to secure the sites — tens of thousands. You effectively need to build a military encampment in the middle of an ongoing war."


Not an easy task.

 

[Jackson]

If anyone has read this thread, they can come to these conclusions:

1. Obama and Kerry cannot be trusted. Both have said there would be "no boots on the ground" in Syria while plans were be made and already prepared for just that scenario.

2. Anyone who feels that they can depend on Putin and Assad to gather all of the chemical weapons during a civil war and move them to neutral ground is still believing in the tooth fairy. What leverage does the US have to force the agreement to the letter? None. Obama saw to that.

3. There are no plans drawn up for verification and nothing is being said about that. Does anyone think ahead?

 

[Ed_Brown]

i wrote a report on sept 3 pertaining to J kerry's lobbying for boots on the ground. I don;t have link posting abilities here yet so I'll include a couple of quotes from that report:

Kerry:“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.”

....afterwards TN Senator Bob Corker(R) went off on Kerry - at which point Kerry backed down off his insistence of keeping the boots on the ground option on the table(notice his last sentence):

Kerry: “Let’s shut the door now,” Kerry said. “The answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war.“

... the last 6 words of his statement speak volumes. It looks good on paper, but in all reality it's an escape clause because --- if troops are sent into Syria to clean up a chem site, all the Obama admin has to do to justify it will be to dredge that escape clause "with respect to the civil war" back up and claim the cleanup is not in relation to the civil war.

Same ole tired, worn out magic show ... poof!

 

[blackhawk]

You can send in what ever kind of international force you want to secure the weapons it's all most certain they will be attacked at some point and the regime and rebels will blame each other for it then pressure will mount on the leaders to get their troops out of harms way which for political reasons they will do and in the end Assad will get to keep his chemical weapons.

 

[deltex1]

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

Dog fucking shit. You demand a cease fire or you promise annihilation. Grow some balls you goddam pussy or resign.

 

[Katzndogz]

America cannot put together an international force because there is not a single country that trusts us. There is not a single country that sees obama as any kind of leader. Other countries are not going to throw away lives on obama's foolishness.

Russia has a better chance of an international coalition than we do.

 

[Bloodrock44]

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

Our troops would be targets of opportunity. Then we would be obliged to retaliate and hence: quagmire and more wasted American lives.