RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Gibbons-Neff writes: "The U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into northern Syria in the coming weeks, expanding the American presence in the country ahead of the offensive on the Islamic State's de facto capital of Raqqa, according to U.S. defense officials familiar with the matter."

U.S. Marines with Alpha Battery, Battalion Landing Team 1st Bn., 4th Marines, fire their M-777 lightweight 155mm howitzer on Dec. 18. (photo: Lance Cpl. Zachery C. Laning/Marine Corps)
U.S. Marines with Alpha Battery, Battalion Landing Team 1st Bn., 4th Marines, fire their M-777 lightweight 155mm howitzer on Dec. 18. (photo: Lance Cpl. Zachery C. Laning/Marine Corps)


US Military Likely to Send as Many as 1,000 More Ground Troops Into Syria Ahead of Raqqa Offensive, Officials Say

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff, The Washington Post

20 March 17

 

he U.S. military has drawn up early plans that would deploy up to 1,000 more troops into northern Syria in the coming weeks, expanding the American presence in the country ahead of the offensive on the Islamic State’s de facto capital of Raqqa, according to U.S. defense officials familiar with the matter.

The deployment, if approved by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and President Trump, would potentially double the number of U.S. forces in Syria and increase the potential for direct U.S. combat involvement in a conflict that has been characterized by confusion and competing priorities among disparate forces. 

Trump, who charged former president Barack Obama with being weak on Syria, gave the Pentagon 30 days to prepare a new plan to counter the Islamic State, and Mattis submitted a broad outline to the White House at the end of February. Gen. Joseph Votel, head of U.S. Central Command, has been filling in more details for that outline, including by how much to increase the U.S. ground presence in Syria. Votel is set to forward his recommendations to Mattis by the end of the month, and the Pentagon secretary is likely to sign off on them, according to a defense official familiar with the deliberations.

While the new contingent of U.S. troops would initially not play a combat role, they would be entering an increasingly complex and dangerous battlefield. In recent weeks, U.S. Army Rangers have been sent to the city of Manbij west of Raqqa to deter Russian, Turkish and Syrian opposition forces all operating in the area, while a Marine artillery battery recently deployed near Raqqa has already come under fire, according to a defense official with direct knowledge of their operations.

The moves would also mark a departure from the Obama administration, which resisted committing more ground troops to Syria.

The implementation of the proposed plan, however, relies on a number of variables that have yet to be determined, including how much to arm Kurdish and Arab troops on the ground, and what part regional actors, such as Turkey, might have in the Raqqa campaign.

The new troops, if sent, would be focused on supporting Kurdish and Arab fighters in northern Syria battling the Islamic State. Under the plan, the added American forces would act primarily as advisers, offering expertise on bomb disposal and coordinating air support for the coalition of Kurds and Arabs, also known as the Syrian Democratic Forces.

About 500 U.S. Special Operations forces are already in Syria operating alongside the SDF, in addition to about 250 Rangers and 200 Marines. The new U.S. troops, if approved, would probably come from parts of both the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit — a flotilla of ships loaded with 2,200 Marines that is now steaming toward the region — and the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, from which 2,500 troops are headed to Kuwait. These conventional troops would supplement the Special Operations forces already on the ground and operate much like their counterparts fighting in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

“This would still be by, with and through our local partners on the ground,” one defense official said of the potential surge. The official, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that have not yet been made public.

The new Syria deployments are set to occur in tandem with a likely White House decision that would officially abolish the troop caps that were put in place for U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria by the Obama administration. The number of troops in Iraq and Syria were officially capped by the previous administration at about 5,000 and 500, respectively. Military commanders have said in the past that the caps have split up units for the sake of keeping troop numbers low.

“If the caps were removed, it would allow us to fight as we train,” said the defense official who discussed the potential surge. “Military doctrine promotes agility, and it would help us respond as conditions dictate.”

White House officials have said they expect the Raqqa campaign to move forward much faster than the current offensive to retake Mosul and have insisted on the need for other options if the current plan bogs down.

“The lesson learned from Libya and Iraq is that you better have a Plan B force or you are asking for trouble,” said a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the planning.

One option would be to embed U.S. forces alongside Syrian Kurdish and Arab forces, potentially pushing U.S. soldiers and Marines into a direct combat role. Those American forces could also be supplemented by troops from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. 

“Basically you would have a force bolstered by allies with U.S. leadership,” the senior U.S. official said. 

Trump made clear throughout the campaign and since his inauguration that he was willing to increase the number of U.S. troops in Syria. At the same time, however, he said he expected regional neighbors who shared U.S. goals in Syria to carry the primary load there. 

“This is definitely a new administration,” said Andrew Exum, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy. While the Trump administration isn’t breaking from the overall strategy of relying on partner forces, its decision to get rid of force caps and commit conventional troops in Syria is “certainly a change,” Exum said.

Trump has spoken favorably about cooperating more with Russia in Syria on counterterrorism operations, although there is little indication that will soon become a reality. Russia’s air and ground forces are fighting a civil war on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The United States and NATO-ally Turkey back separate rebel forces in both the fight against Assad and the anti-Islamic State campaign.

Partners including Saudi Arabia have said for years that they are willing to send troops to Syria, as long as the United States showed it was willing to put comparable skin in the game. The extent to which the Saudis have been included in U.S. planning remains unclear. On Tuesday, Trump met at the White House with Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi deputy crown prince and defense minister. The Saudi foreign minister and his counterpart from the United Arab Emirates are also in Washington this week and met Monday with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Turkey has said it will send ground forces to help seize Raqqa, but that option is complicated by Turkish insistence that its participation depends on the United States severing ties with Syrian Kurdish fighters, called the People’s Protection Units, or YPG. While the Pentagon considers the YPG to be the most effective local Syrian fighting force, Turkey has labeled it a terrorist group.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+4 # chemtex2611 2017-03-20 10:21
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our Fathers lied.

Rudyard Kipling
 
 
+5 # chrisconnolly 2017-03-20 12:31
Yeah, why not create perpetual war? Gawd it's so profitable. Who would ever want to end a war these days, except for the guys on the ground who get killed or maimed. I mean who in their right minds would want to get out any war that has no-bid cost-plus contracts? After all the current wars started fifteen years ago have more than doubled the billionaire class. No matter the highest suicide rates among GI's and Vets. No matter the highest rates of VET homelessness. Collateral damage that's all. Its about jobs, well and profits. So lets just start some new ones so the billionaires can grab some more billions.
 
 
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2017-03-21 07:26
This looks like a big mistake. It is totally unlikely that the US and its ally Saudi Arabia will fight against ISIS or al Qaeda. And anyway, the Russians and Syrians are moving toward eliminating these terrorist proxy armies.

If Trump sends in more US ground troops, they will be fighting on the side of ISIS and al Qaeda. This will put US soldiers in direct confrontation with Russians. Russian planes could bomb US troop locations.

Some neo-cons welcomed Russia's entry into Syria by noting that it would be Putin's Afghanistan. Yes, it could turn out that way, but this time US soldiers would be getting killed fighting for ISIS. No worry. The US media will never report it that way.

Here's how the US media lies: "Kurdish and Arab fighters." Who are the "Arab" fighters? As we know, there are no moderate anti-Assad fighters. They are ISIS.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN