Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq

Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq
By Dana Milbank September 16, 2014 Via Washington Post 

(First of all, let me be perfectly clear. In my humble opinion, this is NOT OUR FIGHT. Except for pursuing Bin Laden and hitting the Taliban for supporting him, it NEVER was our fight. If we must do something regarding ISIS, then push them back into Syria. Let ’em fight, muslim against muslim.

Instead, we have this open ended pseudo war with a sketchy mission. Actually, what we really have is one big false flag scenario with its sights set on Syria. Let’s not forget that not long ago the media was in a flurry over Russian air defense systems installed in Syria along with Russian bases and a deadly arsenal of chemical weapons that were never fully accounted for. Pretty dangerous place to be tip toeing around bombing here and bombing there in pursuit of an enemy scrurrying around like cockroaches. Collateral damage anyone?

Now we see that Obama has set another red line with Syria in a token attempt to prevent them from shooting down our Air Force while attacking that ‘existential threat’ called ISIS, or whatever the hell they call them this week. Really?? Do they think we just blew into town after falling off a watermelon truck?

Of course, the low information voter in the US is taking all this in without objection. Afterall, the mainstream media has been hammering away endlessly about the threat from ISIS for months now. As a result, the polls have shifted in favor of engagement and the war hawks are jumping on the war wagon like Mexicans on a boat preparing to cross the Rio Grande.

So I say to all you moms and dads out there. Give your kids a good hug before they march off to war once again. I hope like hell they return safely and you don’t get that horrible knock on the door by two members of our military.


At Tuesday’s hearing, Graham practically pleaded with Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to endorse the use of U.S. ground troops against the Islamic State. “Do you agree that somebody’s got to go in on the ground?” he asked. “Can you envision a coalition of Arab states that have the capabilities . . . without substantial U.S. military support?” Finally, the senator challenged the general: “If you think they can do it without us being on the ground, just say yes.”

“Yes,” said Dempsey.

This was evidently not the answer sought by Graham, who then asked if Dempsey would recommend U.S. ground troops in Syria “if nobody else will help us.” Dempsey, not quite as categorical as Obama, pledged that if circumstances change to merit U.S. ground forces, he’ll recommend that.

The sudden desire for a ground war is a bit suspect, both because many Republicans adopted this view only after Obama came around to their previous view and because many Republicans oppose even the modest funding Obama has requested to train Syrian fighters. (Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said she opposed “giving even more money to the so-called vetted moderates who aren’t moderate at all.”)

It may be that Republicans embraced the boots-on-the-ground position because Obama rejected it. Whatever the cause, the militancy is spreading — even though polls indicate that while Americans favor military action against the Islamic State, they aren’t keen on ground troops.

House Speaker John Boehner, asked about Obama’s no-boots vow, replied: “I would never tell the enemy what I was willing to do, or unwilling to do.”

Backbencher Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) was more blunt. He told the Associated Press that, rather than depending on “undependable” foreigners, he favors “all-out-war” waged by American forces.

As the House kicked off its debate Tuesday on training Syrian rebels, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) declared that Obama “was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he in fact may need later.”

Said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.): “We have made this decision not to have ground troops. We do not need another half-pregnant war in the Middle East. If it’s important enough to fight, it’s important enough to win.” Kingston added that war in the former Yugoslavia ended only after a U.S. decision “to commit ground troops.”

The little bit of war-weariness that was voiced on the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday came from Democrats, particularly Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

The Republicans were almost unanimous in wanting a broader war than Obama outlined. Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), called it “foolhardy” for Obama to rule out ground troops. “There was a collective sigh of relief at ISIS headquarters in Syria when they heard him say that,” Inhofe alleged, using an acronym for the terrorist group.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) said she didn’t see how the air strikes could work “without the assistance of our trained special operators on the ground.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.) said he didn’t think “five thousand trained in a year” would be sufficient. “I want us to win.”

And Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.) offered his opinion that Iraqi troops would be “more emboldened and encouraged” if they had U.S. troops embedded with them.

Dempsey suggested that Jordanian or Emirati forces might do that job.

“Well, if we all had horses, we’d take a ride,” snapped Sessions. “We don’t have that.”

Ah, but we do. The Republican Party has quickly assembled a veritable cavalry brigade of warhorses.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

6 Comments on “Republicans gallop toward ground war in Syria and Iraq”

  1. josephwouk Says:


    I don’t understand the “false flag” aspect you mentioned.



    • Louisiana Steve Says:

      Hi Joe. This mission is doomed to spill over into a confrontation with Syria and possibly the Russians. Thankfully, there is still some hesitation to bomb ISIS in Syria. However, you have to consider the fact that it’s hard to believe ASSAD will sit back and allow the US to bomb within his country, regardless of the reason. I haven’t heard any news about Assad accepting any of this. All I’ve found in the news is that Obama threatened to destroy his air defenses if he shot a US plane down.

      Furthermore, if there is a conspiracy to get us into a war with Syria, a little bad aim on a bombing mission will work nicely, ergo a false flag of sorts. On the other hand, Syria could shoot down one of our planes.

      • josephwouk Says:

        Still confused. I thought “false flag” meant doing something (bad) and blaming someone else.

        The “Navon affair” is a classic….

        • Louisiana Steve Says:

          OK, then lets consider this possibility…what’s to stop ASSAD from claiming the US has attacked his people after some horrific event while it was ISIS all along, thereby rallying his troops and the Russians.

          a). Modified false flag attack.
          b). Reverse false flag attack.
          c). Double flagger.
          d). False intention attack.
          e). All of the above.
          f). None of the above.


  2. joopklepzeiker Says:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: