It is now coming out that the U.S. Central Command has a plan to secure the VX and sarin in Syria and that plan will require 75,000 American troops in Syria. The plan was devised more than eighteen months ago, long before Bashar al-Assad allegedly used chemical weapons against the rebels. A Department of Defense official told the U.K.’s MailOnline that, “The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor’s staff.” You can read the MailOnline’s complete article here.
At the same time this plan is seeing the light of day, Secretary of State John Kerry has been appearing before Congressional committees repeatedly asserting that there will be “no boots on the ground.” This is less than a day after Kerry said that securing the chemical weapons could require more than just air strikes.
Which is it? No boots on the ground or 75,000 troops on the ground? It appears to me the Obama administration is trying to reassure Congress and the American people that the military action Obama wants to take will not put American military personnel in jeopardy. While at the same time, plans have been devised that would do exactly that. If the goal here is to secure the chemical weapons, someone needs to ask Kerry and company how that will happen with just limited air strikes. It seems clear that troops on the ground will be needed to achieve the alleged objective of securing the chemical weapons.
According to an article in the Epoch Times, a declassified French intelligence report released Sept. 3, Syria has over 1,000 tons of chemical agents, making it one of the world’s largest weapons stockpiles. The chemicals include sulfur mustard, sarin, and VX, the last of which is considered the most toxic among known warfare agents.
Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee produced a draft of a resolution authorizing Obama to use force in Syria, but prohibiting the use of ground troops “for the purpose of combat operations.” Section 2 of the resolution gives him the authority to use the military “as he determines necessary and appropriate” for limited purposes which include “to protect our allies and partners against the use of” weapons of mass destruction.
Does anyone really believe that U.S. troops can be sent to Syria, secure 1,000 tons of chemical agents and then leave without experiencing combat operations? And once they do, that would be free license to send in all kinds of combat support and give Obama the ground war with American troops that I believe is his goal.
Every poll I have seen has well over 90% of Americans opposing U.S. military action in Syria and most of Congress also opposes it. In spite of this and the fact that we have no national security interest in Syria, Obama seems determined to get us into a war we don’t want and can’t afford.