US deploys special forces 2 fight ISIS, carry out unilateral ops into Syria

[Origanalist]

US deploys special forces to boost fight against ISIS, poised to carry out unilateral ops into Syria

Published time: 1 Dec, 2015 15:25
Edited time: 1 Dec, 2015 15:27

The US is set to deploy an expeditionary targeting force to help Iraq put additional pressure on Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL), Defense Secretary Ash Carter said. The special forces will be positioned to conduct unilateral operations into Syria.

"These special operators will over time be able to conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture ISIL leaders," Carter told the House Armed Services Committee in prepared remarks, using an abbreviation for Islamic State.

https://www.rt.com/usa/324135-syria-us-isis-force/

[CaptUSA]

And this is legal, how exactly?

[tod evans]

And this is legal, how exactly?

The clowns in gowns will do some 'splainin' in a few months, once some brave soul has filed suit..............Maybe.

In the meantime.........

[charrob]

12.01.2015:

"U.S. special operation forces will conduct operations in Iraq "at the invitation of the Iraqi government" and be in position "to conduct unilateral operations into Syria," Carter said.

According to the officials, the force would be comprised of 100 to 150 special operations forces that would conduct ground combat raids against ISIS targets in both Iraq and Syria.

The U.S. will consult with the Iraqi government, but there may be times when they don't give Baghdad advance notice that an operation is underway.

Whatever the number, one senior official told NBC News, "this cracks open the door" for U.S. combat operations in Iraq and Syria.

The 50 special operations forces that the president and Pentagon previously announced were headed for northeastern Syria, will not be directly involved in ground combat operations. Their job is to assist and advise mostly Kurdish forces in their combat ops against ISIS targets in Syria.

Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/mideast/defense-secretary-carter-special-ops-force-iraq-fight-isis-n471996

So the U.S. government changed the Iraqi government's mind in one month ? at which time the Iraqi government said:

10.28.2015

Iraq: We Didn't Ask for U.S. Ground Operations

The Iraqi government said Wednesday it didn't ask for — and doesn't need — the "direct action on the ground" promised by the Pentagon.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's spokesman told NBC News that any military involvement in the country must be cleared through the Iraqi government just as U.S.-led airstrikes are.

"This is an Iraqi affair and the government did not ask the U.S. Department of Defense to be involved in direct operations," spokesman Sa'ad al-Hadithi told NBC News. "We have enough soldiers on the ground."

Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-uncovered/iraq-we-didnt-ask-u-s-ground-operations-n452756

So how much U.S. taxpayer money is being used to bribe the Iraqi puppet government to allow U.S. ground combat troops into his country to perform ground missions?

As for Syria, Russian forces have both the approval from the United Nations and the Syrian government to be in Syria. U.S. forces have neither.

Yet Obama warns Putin on intervening in Syria's civil war?:

President Barack Obama warned his Russian counterpart Tuesday against intervening in Syria's civil war, suggesting that Vladimir Putin is aware of the dangers his country faces by entering the bloody conflict.

"I think Mr. Putin understands that ... with Afghanistan fresh in the memory, for him to simply get bogged down in an inconclusive and paralyzing civil conflict is not the outcome that he's looking for," Obama said at a news conference in Paris.

So is Obama saying that the U.S. will back the jihadists in Syria as we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s to wage war against a sovereign government that is no threat to the U.S. but which the U.S. does not want? Sure seems that way...

[charrob]

From the original OPs article:

“The raids in Iraq will be done at the invitation of the Iraqi government and focused on defending its borders and building the [Iraqi Security Forces’] own capacity,” Carter said in his prepared testimony. “This force will also be in a position to conduct unilateral operations into Syria.”

~U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter

LIAR!:

Iraqi PM, Militias Reject Latest US Troop Deployments

Shi'ite Militias Threaten to Fight US Ground Troops


Defense Secretary Ash Carter’s announcement of new deployments of US Special Forces into Iraq, despite coming with some talk of limiting operations inside Iraq to those done “at the invitation of” the Iraqi government, appears to have come without even mentioning it to the Iraqi government beforehand.

Prime Minister Hayder Abadi warned that Iraq, as it has insisted repeatedly before, welcomes air support against ISIS but does not need any foreign ground troops, and warned the US to respect Iraqi sovereignty in the matter.

That’s a relatively modest reaction compared to those of some of the more powerful Shi’ite militias involved in the war against ISIS, who say they intend to shift their fight to directly focus on US ground troops if these new deployments are carried out.

Statements came from Qatib Hezbollah, Asaib Ahl al-Haq, and the Badr Brigade, all of whom noted that they distrust US intentions after the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US at times fought various different militias during the occupation.

How serious the Shi’ite militias’ threats are is unclear, as they’ve talked up going after US ground troops after previously announced deployments and so far haven’t, but it does reflect the continuing discomfort in Iraq, both among the government and its allies, for US escalation.

The US has so far gotten away with these escalations by keeping them small, but even this new deployment is coming with officials talking up the idea that this is just the first of many new deployments into the region aimed at combat.

[Origanalist]

From the original OPs article:



LIAR!:

They intend on escalation, everybody who objects be damned.

[charrob]

They intend on escalation, everybody who objects be damned.

I keep hoping against hope Obama will at least back down on overthrowing Assad so we're not in direct confrontation with Russia (I'm hoping Russia wins this in Syria!). But every day there seems to be a new escalation.

[Origanalist]

I keep hoping against hope Obama will at least back down on overthrowing Assad so we're not in direct confrontation with Russia (I'm hoping Russia wins this in Syria!). But every day there seems to be a new escalation.

I don't think that's going to happen. He's been pretty clear on this. He has been poking at Putin for some time now.

[charrob]

I don't think that's going to happen. He's been pretty clear on this. He has been poking at Putin for some time now.

That's direct war with Russia then.

Russia has already compromised and said that there can be democratic elections -- but Assad has to be a candidate. Last year in June 2014, Assad had 88% of the Syrian vote. Since Sunnis are in the majority, many Sunnis had to have voted for him for him to win that election.

That would mean the U.S. does not want Democracy in Syria.

And it would mean the U.S. does want a direct war with Russia. I really don't see Putin backing down on this.

[Origanalist]

That's direct war with Russia then.

Russia has already compromised and said that there can be democratic elections -- but Assad has to be a candidate. Last year in June 2014, Assad had 88% of the Syrian vote. Since Sunnis are in the majority, many Sunnis had to have voted for him for him to win that election.

That would mean the U.S. does not want Democracy in Syria.

And it would mean the U.S. does want a direct war with Russia. I really don't see Putin backing down on this.

I agree with everything you just said. I think that's exactly right and can only hope I'm wrong.

[wizardwatson]

I don't think that's going to happen. He's been pretty clear on this. He has been poking at Putin for some time now.

I think a very dangerous game is being played or it's scripted.

It seems to me if Russia and US interests aren't aligned then the US may have played Russia by getting them to form a no-fly zone around Syria and effectively be the strong man for the chopping up of that country that the US wants to happen. Now the US can berate Russia for "collateral damage" and all the other things that the invading force is blamed for doing. We stand back with plausible deniability that would have appeared more awkward if the US or NATO went in and neutralized ISIS.

That's a scenario for what may have occurred assuming an "outsider" Russia.

If however, the US and Russian power brokers are aligned, then Russia could simply be acting as diplomatic cover for the charge of world hegemony. That's the scarier alternative to me. That would mean that this huge apparent power shift from US to Russia is planned. I base this scenario on the fact that it's quite notable that we're seeing a military power transfer synonymous with the shifting of the economic center away from US/Europe towards Asia. The baton of "global leader" is passed in full public view, just as America is about to "dry up and blow away" as Bibi puts it.

[Origanalist]

I think a very dangerous game is being played or it's scripted.

It seems to me if Russia and US interests aren't aligned then the US may have played Russia by getting them to form a no-fly zone around Syria and effectively be the strong man for the chopping up of that country that the US wants to happen. Now the US can berate Russia for "collateral damage" and all the other things that the invading force is blamed for doing. We stand back with plausible deniability that would have appeared more awkward if the US or NATO went in and neutralized ISIS.

That's a scenario for what may have occurred assuming an "outsider" Russia.

If however, the US and Russian power brokers are aligned, then Russia could simply be acting as diplomatic cover for the charge of world hegemony. That's the scarier alternative to me. That would mean that this huge apparent power shift from US to Russia is planned. I base this scenario on the fact that it's quite notable that we're seeing a military power transfer synonymous with the shifting of the economic center away from US/Europe towards Asia. The baton of "global leader" is passed in full public view, just as America is about to "dry up and blow away" as Bibi puts it.

Well, if you're right then all our manipulation in Ukraine was just for show. I discount nothing at this point.

[specsaregood]

This was an interesting article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...272_story.html

BAIJI, Iraq — On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting U.S. control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”

The allegations of U.S. collusion with the Islamic State are aired regularly in parliament by Shiite politicians and promoted in postings on social media. They are persistent enough to suggest a deliberate campaign on the part of Iran’s allies in Iraq to erode American influence, U.S. officials say.

In one typical recent video that appeared on the Facebook page of a Shiite militia, a lawmaker with the country’s biggest militia group, the Badr Organization, waves apparently new U.S military MREs (meals ready to eat) — one of them chicken and dumplings — allegedly found at a recently captured Islamic State base in Baiji, offering proof, he said, of U.S. support.

“The Iranians and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda, that the United States is supporting ISIL,” Warren said. “It’s part of the Iranian propaganda machine.”

yes, I'm sure its all iran's fault.

[Origanalist]

From the original OPs article:



LIAR!:

US Looks to Circumvent Iraqi PM’s Objection on New Troops
Unclear if US Can Escalate Without Further Undermining Abadi

When Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced the latest US deployment of ground troops into Iraq, he set in motion a chain reaction within Iraq’s political leadership that has other US officials scrambling to protect PM Hayder Abadi’s increasingly precarious situation.

Abadi was quick to object to the US deployment, and it’s clear why. A huge number of Shi’ite militias, many of them hugely politically powerful, are blasting the deployment and demanding the Abadi government do something to prevent them, warning they’ll shift from fighting ISIS to fighting US troops instead.

US officials are pretty sure they can circumvent Abadi’s objections, but are trying to figure out the best way to do it without further weakening Abadi, who they still see as a vital ally. As one US official noted, “there are ways to make these things work.”

more here....http://news.antiwar.com/2015/12/04/u...FOu4Xo.twitter