Marines Arrive in Syria to Help Retake Raqqa

[Stevicus]

Marines have arrived in Syria to fire artillery in the fight for Raqqa

Marines from an amphibious task force have left their ships in the Middle East and deployed to Syria, establishing an outpost from which they can fire artillery guns in support of the fight to oust the Islamic State from the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, defense officials said.

The deployment marks a new escalation in the U.S. war in Syria, and puts more conventional U.S. troops in the battle. Several hundred Special Operations troops have advised local forces there for months, but the Pentagon has mostly shied away from using conventional forces in Syria. The new mission comes as the Trump administration weighs a plan to help Syrian rebels take back Raqqa, the de facto capital of the Islamic State. The plan also includes more Special Operations troops and attack helicopters.

Will this bring about a new escalation in the conflict? Could this lead to another Vietnam for the US?

If they take back the "capital" of the Islamic State, it probably won't mean the end of ISIS. There are other factions fighting, and it's hard to keep track of who's who without a scorecard.

Are they just playing whack-a-mole here, or is there some actual "strategy" they have to end this thing?

 

[Kemosloby]

My guess is a shift in strategy, from the Obama administration strategy of trying to lose the war to the Trump administration strategy of trying to win the war.

 

[Stevicus]

My guess is a shift in strategy, from the Obama administration strategy of trying to lose the war to the Trump administration strategy of trying to win the war.

Perhaps, although it's difficult to say what objectives or conditions must be met in order to "win" the war. It's not a war against Assad's faction, even though it's a civil war within his own country. It also may not do much about ISIS and other groups elsewhere in the Middle East.

 

[Kemosloby]

Perhaps, although it's difficult to say what objectives or conditions must be met in order to "win" the war. It's not a war against Assad's faction, even though it's a civil war within his own country. It also may not do much about ISIS and other groups elsewhere in the Middle East.

It could have many angles. It could have to do with the drug trade, backdoor power deals with Iran etc. For the profit of the NWO, aka Vatican power, rebuilding Rome with their allies to replace British empire allies. Or something, but it's definitely nothing to do with anything they say on the news.

 

[metis]

There's an old saying that "If you break it, you bought it", therefore we need to be very cautious in making us as the primary opposition to ISIS.

 

[leibowde84]

My guess is a shift in strategy, from the Obama administration strategy of trying to lose the war to the Trump administration strategy of trying to win the war.

Obama admin. trying to lose the war? What do you mean? All progress was made during the Obama administration, and there has been a ton of it. ISIS has shrunk significantly since Obama started this fight. We will see what Trump can achieve, but, thus far, it isn't really anything.

What leads you to believe that Obama was trying to lose?
Beyond Trump's own claims, what leads you to believe that Trump is trying to win?

 

[Kemosloby]

Obama admin. trying to lose the war? What do you mean? All progress was made during the Obama administration, and there has been a ton of it. ISIS has shrunk significantly since Obama started this fight. We will see what Trump can achieve, but, thus far, it isn't really anything.

What leads you to believe that Obama was trying to lose?
Beyond Trump's own claims, what leads you to believe that Trump is trying to win?

Isis wasn't even an Is before Obama...

 

[LuisDantas]

Silly, shamelessly partisan conspiracy "theories" aside, having actual boots on the ground is very likely to be an improvement over the previous (drone-based?) strategy in the long run.

Largely because it will help drive home (in the USA) what is at stake and how painful it all is. But still.

 

[leibowde84]

Isis wasn't even an Is before Obama...

OK. I agree that pulling troops out of Iraq was a significant factor in the creation and power of ISIS, but Obama didn't really have a choice. Iraq is a sovereign state and they demanded that American troops leave.

But, that has nothing to do with your claim. You pulled a "Trump" there. You claimed that Obama was trying to lose, and that Trump is trying to win. Can you support those claims? Can you answer my questions?

 

[Kemosloby]

OK. I agree that pulling troops out of Iraq was a significant factor in the creation and power of ISIS, but Obama didn't really have a choice. Iraq is a sovereign state and they demanded that American troops leave.

But, that has nothing to do with your claim. You pulled a "Trump" there. You claimed that Obama was trying to lose, and that Trump is trying to win. Can you support those claims? Can you answer my questions?

Sovereignty didn't stop Obama from bombing countries. You can make excuses all day long but the proof is in the pudding.

 

[Kemosloby]

OK. I agree that pulling troops out of Iraq was a significant factor in the creation and power of ISIS, but Obama didn't really have a choice. Iraq is a sovereign state and they demanded that American troops leave.

But, that has nothing to do with your claim. You pulled a "Trump" there. You claimed that Obama was trying to lose, and that Trump is trying to win. Can you support those claims? Can you answer my questions?

Selective enforcement of the rules. When they were ready to throw the fight, refer to rule number 32-b , Sovereign nation violation, as the reason. Since you can't just throw the fight, it has to "look good".

 

[Nietzsche]

You can make excuses all day long but the proof is in the pudding.

Wow. That's...wow. Careful there, Mr. "Jetfuel can't melt steel beams, Illuminati Vatican Bohemian grove world order". Big talk from someone who's basically a conspiracy-theory potluck.

 

[Kemosloby]

Wow. That's...wow. Careful there, Mr. "Jetfuel can't melt steel beams, Illuminati Vatican Bohemian grove world order". Big talk from someone who's basically a conspiracy-theory potluck.

Jetfuel can't melt steel. Not even considering jetfuel melting steel 30 stories up, 30 mins earlier and then have "rivers of molten steel" found under the debris. You can be as blind as you want to be, but not me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Selective enforcement of the rules. When they were ready to throw the fight, refer to rule number 32-b , Sovereign nation violation, as the reason. Since you can't just throw the fight, it has to "look good".

Of course, had he violated the agreements that his predecessor put in place, you would now be crucifying him for putting American lives in the line.

Obama just could not win, now could he?

 

[Nietzsche]

Jetfuel can't melt steel. Not even considering jetfuel melting steel 30 stories up, 30 mins earlier and then have "rivers of molten steel" found under the debris. You can be as blind as you want to be, but not me.

You mean the molten steel no one actually has first-hand evidence of, only vague recollections and distant footage showing some manner of hot liquid that could be anything?

 

[Kemosloby]

Of course, had he violated the agreements that his predecessor put in place, you would now be crucifying him for putting American lives in the line.

Obama just could not win, now could he?

If there was some sort of consistent respect for nations sovereignty, but no. He bombed anybody his UN cronies wanted bombed. Conveniently the UN cronies had Bush put in agreements which set themselves up to throw the fight once Obama was put in office. Even if it is legit, which I highly doubt, I think our track record shows that America is not designed to be nation builders, global empire or world police, Every 4 years changing hands, leading everybody this way and that.

 

[Kemosloby]

You mean the molten steel no one actually has first-hand evidence of, only vague recollections and distant footage showing some manner of hot liquid that could be anything?

Probably the stuff that was causing their boots to melt. The stuff the first responders reported seeing, which was buried quicker than Peter Jennings could be convinced to stop calling them demolitions.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think Syria wants US involvement. Maybe we think we are trying to clean up the mess we (the US) created. I don't think we'd want Syria involved in some internal US conflict if the US government didn't want them here. So I don't think we should be involved in their conflict unless that country's government asks us to get involved..

 

[Stevicus]

There's an old saying that "If you break it, you bought it", therefore we need to be very cautious in making us as the primary opposition to ISIS.

I agree, although I think we should be cautious in any kind of internal conflict like this. Intervening in other countries' civil wars is getting to be a bad habit.

 

[leibowde84]

Sovereignty didn't stop Obama from bombing countries. You can make excuses all day long but the proof is in the pudding.

That doesn't make sense.

Sovereignty wouldn't have anything to do with bombing other countries. When a sovereign country wants our help in air campaigns, there is no issue with sovereignty. But, when a country doesn't want american troops on the ground, we don't have a choice.

So, can you answer my question now?