Pentagon moving forces closer to Syria

| August 24, 2013

Andy sends us a link to the Associated Press in which Defense Secretary Hagel tells reporters that the Obama Administration is moving some naval forces closer to Syria;

Hagel declined to describe any specific movements of U.S. forces. He said Obama asked that the Pentagon to prepare military options for Syria and that some of those options “requires positioning our forces.”

U.S. Navy ships are capable of a variety of military action, including launching Tomahawk cruise missiles, as they did against Libya in 2011 as part of an international action that led to the overthrow of the Libyan government.

“The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for contingencies, and that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options — whatever options the president might choose,” Hagel said.

So, I’m wondering what the national security interests are in Syria that would justify the use of US military force there? Why the rush to war? What’s our exit strategy? Those are the same questions that were asked of George W Bush and his father when they went to war, so how come no one is asking these questions of this administration?

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Smitty says:

    you dare ask a question of our beloved emperor in chief? you racist!!!

  2. Mike says:

    Letter bomb them first haha

  3. Old Trooper says:

    Yeah, what Smitty said!!

    As Achmed the dead terrorist would say: You racist bastard!

  4. Green Thumb says:

    So, let me get this straight.

    Syria has finally crossed Obama’s “Red Line?”

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    You want to ask why and wherefore? Oh, how very sill! Why would you do that? Why? It’s something that makes sense. You never do that with Bodaprez. Never. You’ll ruin his golf game.

  6. Green Thumb says:

    I am on the fence on this one.

    As a former IN Officer, a protracted ground war is out of the question.

    However, supporting rebels that will eventually turn on us is out of the question.

    But Assad is using chemical weapons which is out of the question. (I am very pro-Kurdish).

    Obamaturd has no answers or foreign policy in place.

    A lot of questions.

    Any responses out there?

  7. Dave Thul says:

    If Syria has and is using chemical weapons on its own people, I think we are justified in forcing Assad out, and I would be first in line to volunteer of deployments come down the pipeline.

    But Jonn is right, the deafening silence by the anti war types confirms everything I thought about them back in 2004-2006.

  8. Hondo says:

    Well, I’m guessing the CJCS kinda wishes now he’d talked to the SECDEF before sending that letter to Rep. Engel earlier this week . . .

  9. Tman says:

    Here we go again (and again)

  10. Hondo says:

    GT: some problems are intractable, and have no good answers. Those are the problems in which one should avoid involvement like the plague.

    Syria today is IMO one such problem. I see no good options there.

  11. William says:

    Because it doesn’t matter to this administration if American’s die, as long as they win the election.

  12. Smitty says:

    fuck them, let assad gas his people, and let the terrorists, im sorry, freedom fighters kill assad’s people. all im seeing is there are 100K fewer terrorists trying to attack america thanks to this little civil war. im rooting for the long drawn out stalemate. hope they keep fighting until the last 2 guys left alive cant find each other to kill each other.

    GT, im very pro-kurd too. once all the arabs kill each other off, we can let the kurds have the whole damned place.

  13. Andy says:

    add this to the story of France calling for force in Syria, and you can see the back door wheeling and dealing and where it’s, Libya 2.0.

  14. B Woodman says:

    NOW we know where all of Iraq’s/Saddam’s missing WMDs went to!
    Any response from the anti-war crowd that used to chant “Booosh lied, soldiers died!”? I think their silence speaks volumes.

    As for whether to get involved or not, I say NOT – with a caveat. The only thing we should do is circle the area, and if any of the conflict spills outside their national boundaries, push ’em back inside with drones, missiles & bombs. No boots on the ground. Let ’em continue to kill each other to the last camel.

  15. NHSparky says:

    Memo to libtards…not so fucking easy when you’re in charge, is it?

  16. Hondo says:

    B Woodman: that’s actually one possible reason for this latest move (disclaimer: I’m not privy to any such info, nor would I discuss it here if I were).

    That said, given past contradictory statements concerning Syria by the current Administration, I’m not exactly inclined to believe that’s what’s going on here. I’m thinking more along the lines of “support for our Allies” when they intervene on the side of the Islamist opposition.

    I certainly hope I’m wrong. I have the distinct feeling that a Syria run by Assad – as evil a bastard as he is – would be preferable to a Syria run by a bunch of Islamists who hate the US.

    Why? I think I’ve seen this movie before – staged in Tehran in 1978-1979. And in Libya earlier this decade. And in Tunisia and Egypt.

    Those versions sucked, and still do. We don’t need to see another sequel.

  17. Anonymous says:

    Awright, we’ll be stuck in a MidEast hellhole having ungrateful people throwing rocks at and blowing up our guys w/ home made bombs by Christmas!

  18. NHSparky says:

    Hondo…”The enemy of my enemy is my friend” can be a rather convienent, if naive, assessment (see: Soviets in WWII.) But what if EVERYONE involved is your enemy?

    BWoodman is right: seal off Syria, nothing in or out, and turn the entire country into a giant WWE cage match where we’re the only ones left standing.

  19. LebbenB says:

    The reason there are no hard questions being asked of the POTUS is because there never is any substance to his actions. This is simply more posturing, “Full of the sound and the fury yet signifying nothing.”

    Besides, as others have pointed out there is no “good guy” to support in the Syrian morass. Syria is a tar baby waiting to stick to any nation that tries to get involved.

    Like GT, I’m pretty pro-Kurd myself. I was very impressed with the ones I met in Iraq.

  20. Pam says:

    Another situation that will not end well, with or without our presence. I vote without.

  21. valerie says:

    Ummm, lemme see. We are supposed to believe that the Syrian government launched a chemical weapons attack on its own civilians while UN chemical weapons inspectors were very conveniently visiting?


  22. TMB says:

    @7 Keep in mind 100,000 people have been shot or blown up by artillery in the last two years. Why is a handful of folks getting gassed all the sudden cause for war?

  23. Azygos says:

    “If Syria has and is using chemical weapons on its own people, I think we are justified in forcing Assad out,…”

    How do we know who is using these chemical weapons? The other night I saw on the web obvious fauxtogrophy of a bunch of “victims” of a gas attack. What are obungles motives in entering this war?

  24. 1Marine says:

    Convenient how all bodies were tagged in English and western numeric text. Hmmmmm.

  25. Sparks says:

    @24 Just like when we bombed Baghdad. All of a sudden there were photos of bombed out intel buildings with English signs on them saying, “Baby Milk Factory”. I remember those phoney photos well.

  26. Common Sense says:

    @12 – Something like 20,000 Syrian Kurds have left for Iraqi Kurdistan.

    I say that if we’re going to give someone money and support, we give it to them.

    If Assad is using chemical weapons, do I really care if he’s using them against Al Qaeda and their ilk? All’s fair in love and war, right?

  27. Anonymous says:

    National defense? Who or what is threatening our nation — while in Syria? Imagine you just had a leg blown off or made you’re made blind by an IED. It’d be worth it because you were defending our nation — in Syria. All sending troops into Syria would do is make college professors and celebrities cream their jeans, because this time it’s Barry doing it. Sweet Barry, the living legend.

  28. Ex-PH2 says:

    If this is an internal war – which it is – it was started by locals and bolstered by the AQs and the Taliban and we should stay out of it.

    I don’t put much store by anything dredged up from Bodaprez’s office by the news services. He changes his mind with the weather report and doesn’t comment on what’s really important. I don’t believe for one second that he either has a Middle East policy, or even knows what that is.

  29. Frank G says:

    stay out. Arm the Kurds to protect themselves against Jihadis and help the Christians out. Otherwise – let Assad and AQ kill each other to the last man

  30. NavCWORet says:

    Rename Syria to Thunderdome. Let them have at each other.