US Gov’t Semantics To Aid In Deploying Ground Troops To Syria

By Brandon Turbeville

Scrambling to protect the terrorists it has funded, armed, trained, and directed for several years against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad, the United States is now openly considering the option of ground troops in Syria. Of course, the term “ground troops” is not being used in general discussion. Instead, “enablers” is the semantical redirection of choice.

Say what you want about the U.S. government – they may be a collection of psychotic murderers hell-bent on world hegemony or World War 3 – but they have one hell of a thesaurus.

Ground troops – sorry, “enablers” – have been active in Syria for some time in the form of Special Forces soldiers taking place in direct combat support missions for terrorist actors as well as in logistical organization and spotting maneuvers. The new discussion, however, is surrounding the open deployment of “ground troops” to Syria under the guise of “fighting ISIS.” In reality, of course, those troops will be stationed in Syria to support ISIS and the alleged-but-never-proven-in-the-slightest-to-be-moderate “rebels” who are also raping and beheading their way across Syria in exactly the same fashion as ISIS.

These troops will be a further step in the direction of direct US military involvement in Syria of the open war variety. These troops will also be sitting ducks and potential “collateral damage” from Russian airstrikes actually aimed at ISIS/jihadist fighters and a potential spark for the powder keg of propaganda that would be launched in the event of Russia “killing our troops.”

Of course, the responsibility for the lives of the soldiers would be squarely on the backs of the imperialists who committed them to yet another theatre of intended destruction and oppression. The United States and NATO has created, armed, trained, funded, and directed terrorists for the purposes of overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. The U.S./NATO then engaged in a bombing campaign against Syrian civilian infrastructure under the guise of “bombing ISIS” targets while Turkey and Israel constantly chipped away at the Syrian military. All of this was accomplished against the wishes of the Syrian government or the Syrian people.

The Russians, however, have conducted their operations as a means of self-defense against an ominous NATO terror push toward its borders and beyond. It has also conducted its bombing missions with the permission and at the request of the Syrian government as well as the full support of the Syrian people.

After only weeks of Russian bombing, it is now clear that the U.S. was never interested in defeating ISIS and that it never engaged in anything but a phony war on the terrorist organization. The war on Assad, however, was quite real. The comparison between the two bombing campaigns is now clearly evident for anyone to see. Indeed, the withered flesh of John McCain must crawl every time a Russian sortie falls upon the heads of his terrorist friends in Syria.

Still, the information above is not pervasive enough within the general population of the United States to prevent a march toward greater war. That is, unfortunately, the reason why various members of the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of State have recently been able to openly announce that not only was the option of sending ground troops to Syria something that is necessary, but that it is something that is currently being discussed within the White House.

As far back as September, 2015, Skull and Bones member and Secretary of State John Kerry stated that ground troops were a necessity in Syria but that Obama had ruled out the option of those troops being American. Instead, he stated that “people in the region” were discussing it and that “There will need to be people on the ground. I am convinced there will be at the appropriate moment.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter recently went even further than Kerry’s previous statements in suggesting that ground troops may soon be deployed in Syria, although the emphasis on “regional” troops was missing in his statement. According to Carter, American troops can and will be deployed in combat missions – but the combat missions will not be called combat missions so they will not actually be combat missions. They will simply be ongoing “kinetic” “aid and assist” missions that see U.S. soldiers in direct “kinetic action” against other soldiers who are also engaged in “kinetic action.” In other words, the U.S. war machine is playing semantics once again in order to insert more troops into a conflict that the U.S. government itself created.

“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,” Carter said.

Kerry, not to be left in second place when it comes to the sport of warmongering, however, has essentially stated that, not only do American “enablers” (i.e. troops) need to be deployed to Syria but that the decision to do so is all but inevitable.

When asked about the possible deployment of troops on the ground inside Syria, Kerry was quoted by NPR journalist Steve Inskeep as replying “Will we need to put enablers on the ground? I think so. The President hasn’t made the decision yet.”

Two things come to mind here. If the President has not made the decision to deploy ground troops, why is the Secretary of State discussing what the President is still debating within his own mind? Why is the Secretary giving his opinion on the matter if the decision has not been made by the one individual who can make it?

Either the President has not yet made the decision to fully commit U.S. troops to Syria (or is hesitant to do so) and the Secretary of Defense/State is attempting to bully and bulldoze such a commitment out of him publicly, or the President has indeed made the decision beforehand.

According to RT, it appears that Obama at the behest of his “advisers” (read: “handlers”) has already made the decision to deploy troops into Syria. The report states:

With US policy towards ISIS in the doldrums, President Barack Obama is reportedly considering several new strategies to target the terrorist group in Iraq and Syria.

The strategies emerged after discussions which took place over the past few weeks between military field commanders and the president’s most senior national security advisers, including Department of Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Secretary of State John Kerry. The recommendations could alter the military’s involvement against the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS/ISIL), according to officials who spoke to the Washington Post.

One recommendation would be to move a limited number of Special Operations forces on the ground in Syria and put US advisers closer to the firefights in Iraq. The number of additional troops would be required is unclear, but the officials told the Post the number would be relatively small.
[…]

Other proposals include embedding US troops with Iraqi security forces and giving them ability to call airstrikes. Two officials told The Hill that US troops are currently embedded with Iraqis at the division level, which keeps them stationed at base headquarters.

Another option would embed US forces with Iraqis closer to the battlefield, at the level of brigade or a battalion, for specific operations to retake Ramadi, a western Iraqi city that IS forces captured this past spring.

Yet another proposal reported by The Hill would be to send more ammunition and weapons to a coalition of rebel groups battling IS and the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Also under consideration is the increased targeting of IS’ production and sale of oil on the black market. The US-led military coalition has struck oil refineries controlled by IS, but officials are looking at using different kinds of weapons to target the facilities.

Unfortunately, because the general American public remains entirely befuddled as to the nature of current events, particularly foreign affairs, whatever decision made in the Deep State will undoubtedly be implemented without resistance.

The American people, at best, seem to be confused as to why the U.S. government is so upset at Russia for bombing ISIS when they have been told for months that the U.S. is bombing ISIS. They are often confused at how al-Qaeda has become the good guys when, only a few short years ago, they were the very bad guys. They are also confused as to why al-Qaeda then becomes the bad guys again whenever a new law is introduced to restrict the freedom of the “exceptional” good guys.

In 2015, Americans are unfortunately confused by a great many things. For this reason, they tend to either tune out or come to resemble a tennis ball on the court of current events, constantly being slammed to one extreme and then back to the other.

Regardless, Americans had better wise up before “multi-national kinetic operations” begin and “mutual neutralization” finally becomes a reality. In other words, before the maniacal ruling elite starts World War 3 and incinerates us all.

Image Credit

Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.