Ramping up in Syria

Daily Mail wrote:U.S. could send Special Forces to find high-value Syrian terror targets in significant ramping up of the war against ISIS
By LARISA BROWN and DAVID WILLIAMS FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 19:34 EST, 28 October 2015 | UPDATED: 04:42 EST, 29 October 2015

America is preparing to boost its Special Forces presence in Syria to help warplanes identify high value jihadist targets.

The Pentagon is looking to deploy Green Berets or other special operations forces inside the country in a significant ramping up of the war against Islamic State.

The move in part would be in response to Russia’s military intervention in the region which critics have claimed left the US looking ineffectual.

These new ‘boots on the ground’ will help to identify jihadist targets on the frontline and will join with British Special Forces to seek out vital information on Russian troops on the ground.

Military officials are also examining plans to send Apache attack helicopters to Iraq to help struggling Iraqi troops.

It is believed a number of US special operation troops have already been operating in the country alongside British Special Forces in specific missions.

But the proposals involve deploying teams of 30 to 50 men on or close to the frontline with in a significant ramping up of US involvement.

They would embed with Syrian rebel units Kurdish troops north of Islamic State’s de facto capital Raqqa.

Details of other proposals are unclear but President Obama is understood to have been presented with a series of options as part of the Pentagon’s attempts to reboot America’s strategy towards IS.

It is understood they will join British forces, as the UK also steps up its special forces operations in both Syria and Iraq.

A joint Special Forces operation will deploy to monitor the formidable Soviet Spetznaz troops, who are in Syria believed to be operating ahead of the Russian air force.

They are seeking targets for air strikes and their presence could indicate Moscow’s next move and help identify whether their targets are moderate Syrians or IS jihadists.

Fears have been raised about Special Forces soldiers from both the UK and US operating in the country being killed by Russian air force raids.

Prime Minister David Cameron does not have to reveal to Parliament any details of Special Forces operations in Syria because their missions are top secret.

Despite Parliament voting against action in Syria, he is able to deploy specialist soldiers without seeking parliamentary approval.

In recent weeks he has pledge to spend more money on bolstering its SF soldiers and increasing their numbers in the field in a bid to defeat jihadists operating across the world.

As part of US plans attack helicopters will also be sent to Iraq to build momentum in the battle against IS.

Two US officials said any deployments would be narrowly tailored, seeking to advance specific, limited military objectives in both Iraq and Syria.

One option includes temporarily deploying some US special operations forces inside of Syria to advise moderate Syrian opposition fighters for the first time and, potentially, to help call in US airstrikes, one official said.

Other possibilities including sending a small number of Apache attack helicopters, and US forces to operate them, to Iraq, as well as taking steps to bolster other Iraqi capabilities needed to claw back territory from IS.

The deliberations come as the US looks to Syrian opposition fighters it supports to put pressure on Raqqa and for Iraqi forces to retake Ramadi after the city fell to the militants earlier this year.

One of the officials said the proposals were still in a conceptual stage - meaning that even if any were approved in the coming days, a US military deployment could still be weeks or months away.

The Pentagon and White House declined comment on the options.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter signalled his intent to step up the US military’s activity in Iraq and Syria, just days after US forces participated in a raid to rescue Islamic State hostages in Iraq.

A US Delta Force soldier was killed in the assault on an IS compound.

Ash Carter told a Senate hearing on Tuesday: ‘We won’t hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground.’

Marine Corp General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate hearing he would consider recommending putting more US forces with Iraqi troops to support the Islamic State fight if it improved chances of defeating the militants.

nicko wrote:The Kurds are attacking isis aren't they?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend,

or haven't you heard that?

nicko wrote:Turkey has been bombing the Kurds under the pretence of bombing ISIS.

Cass wrote:Afghanistan & Iraq and even Vietnam revisited

Associated Press wrote:Obama crosses own red line with Syrian deployment

WASHINGTON (AP) — Even when President Barack Obama sent U.S. troops back to Iraq and ordered the military to stay in Afghanistan, he insisted Syria would remain off limits for American ground forces. Now he's crossed his own red line.

Obama's announcement Friday that he was deploying up to 50 U.S. special operations troops into northern Syria to assist in the fight against the Islamic State group is the kind of incremental move that has defined his second-term Mideast strategy.

The U.S. military footprint in the region is growing. But each step is on a small scale, so as to reassure Americans that Obama isn't plunging their country into another large, open-ended conflict.

While the strategy may help ease them back into the realities of war, experts and some of Obama's political allies say his slow ramp-up may not be enough to defeat the fast-moving militants.

"Deploying a handful of U.S. special operations forces to Syria will not change this situation significantly," said Frederic Hof, Obama's former Syria special adviser. "It is a Band-Aid of sorts."

Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, said the latest escalation "is unlikely to succeed in achieving our objective of defeating IS and instead threatens to embroil the United States in Syria's civil war."

Why is any of this our problem?

The military campaign against IS is nowhere near the size and scope of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama repeatedly has used the costly and unpopular Iraq War as an example of what he's tried to avoid.

But it was the location, not the number, that elevated the significance of his Syrian decision. It was the first time the U.S. has openly sent forces into Syria, expanding the geographic reach of Obama's military efforts in the Middle East.

For years, the president has said Syria was precisely the kind of situation he was elected to keep the U.S. military from. Washington has no partners in the Syrian government and few good options among opposition leaders. There is no ground force that the U.S. can quickly train.

But the crisis has become unavoidable for Obama, particularly since IS crossed the border into Iraq. A civil war that Obama once could pin on Syrians to settle has now threatened to upend the entire region.

Obama's first move was to send a few hundred U.S. troops to Iraq to train and assist local forces fighting IS. That was a return to Iraq for the U.S. military after the 2011 withdrawal, which was a fulfillment of Obama's campaign promise to end the war he inherited from President George W. Bush.

But over the past year, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has expanded to about 3,300. Also, the U.S. began airstrikes against IS in Iraq and Syria.

Despite killing as many as 12,000 militants, the bombing has not significantly weakened the IS' capacity to hold territory, and foreign fighters and others have replenished the group's ranks.

Obama had hoped a ground force trained by Americans elsewhere in the region would have complemented the strikes in Syria. But the train-and-equip program failed; Obama abandoned it this fall.

The new U.S. deployment into Syria essentially replaces that effort.

So, why is Obama doing this?

The decision allows Obama, under pressure by the Pentagon and international partners to make progress against IS, to make the case that he's trying new ways to address the crisis. The White House contends Obama isn't backtracking on his commitment to keep U.S. troops out of Syria because the new military presence is narrow.

But to some, the White House appears to be more concerned about being ableto keep that political promise than in taking more substantial action to resolve the situation.

"War has a harsh reality in that in order to have an effect you have to be present," said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy flight officer and the director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security.

The White House put no timetable on how long the American forces will stay. Obama has said he expects the fight against IS in Iraq and Syria to last beyond his presidency.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday he wasn't ruling out a further U.S. escalation of the fight and that he couldn't predict the future.

Only two weeks ago, Obama said he was reversing course and keeping American troops in Afghanistan beyond next year.

That means the president who inherited two military conflicts will likely hand his successor three.
___

Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Deb Riechmann contributed to this report.