Quote:
Originally Posted by sheltiedave
No boots on the ground is an euphemism for "only a limited number of advisors," much like how Vietnam started. We did not have troops in the front lines, but we did have advisers that participated in limited staff functions and strategy. Then, later, the boots came.
For maintaining a limited status quo in Syria, carrying out limited air strikes, setting up and maintaining safe zones, and interdicting hostile military forays by ISIS, Syria, and Russian jets are all possible utilizing air superiority and drones, with very few boots on the ground - that is an achievable goal with current resources.
|
Back to the WaPo article: "
But that's not what Clinton said. Her language clearly took the option of ground troops — however you define that — off the table in both Iraq and Syria."
So that's why we're in Syria? To maintain a "limited status quo"? I thought we were there to
defeat ISIS in Syria. There are already plenty of news reports that our special ops fighters have been involved in combat. These fighters - who originally there to (as purposefully vague as this statement was) to "retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units" - are already in harms way, and Clinton wants to put more there.
Sounds like "boots on the ground" to me, however you or Clinton want to spin that. And we leave them in harms way while our supposed "fiends" in the area provide aid and support to ISIS, and we don't do much about that either.
Your comparison to Vietnam above might actually be quite accurate.