Just over a week into the Trump Administration, the President issued an Executive Order giving Defense Secretary James Mattis 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. According to the Order, the plan should make recommendations on military actions, diplomatic actions, partners, strategies, and how to pay for the operation.
As we approach the president’s deadline it looks like the military is going to present Trump with a plan to do a whole lot more of what we’ve been doing and somehow expect different results. Proving the old saying that when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, we are hearing increasing reports that the military will recommend sending thousands of US troops into Syria and Iraq.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
This would be a significant escalation in both countries, as currently there are about 5,000 US troops still fighting our 13-year war in Iraq, and some 500 special forces soldiers operating in Syria.
The current Syria ceasefire, brokered without US involvement at the end of 2016, is producing positive results and the opposing groups are talking with each other under Russian and Iranian sponsorship. Does anyone think sending thousands of US troops into a situation that is already being resolved without us is a good idea?
In language reminiscent of his plans to build a wall on the Mexican border, the president told a political rally in Florida over the weekend that he was going to set up “safe zones” in Syria and would make the Gulf States pay for them. There are several problems with this plan.
First, any “safe zone” set up inside Syria, especially if protected by US troops, would amount to a massive US invasion of the country unless the Assad government approves them. Does President Trump want to begin his presidency with an illegal invasion of a sovereign country?
Second, there is the little problem of the Russians, who are partners with the Assad government in its efforts to rid the country of ISIS and al-Qaeda. ISIS is already losing territory on a daily basis. Is President Trump willing to risk a military escalation with Russia to protect armed regime-change forces in Syria?
Third, the Gulf States are the major backers of al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria – as the president’s own recently-resigned National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, revealed in a 2015 interview. Unless these safe zones are being set up to keep al-Qaeda and ISIS safe, it doesn’t make any sense to involve the Gulf States.
Many will say we should not be surprised at these latest moves. As a candidate, Trump vowed to defeat ISIS once and for all. However, does anyone really believe that continuing the same strategy we have followed for the past 16 years will produce different results this time? If what you are hammering is not a nail, will hammering it harder get it nailed in?
Washington cannot handle the truth: solving the ISIS problem must involve a whole lot less US activity in the Middle East, not a whole lot more. Until that is understood, we will continue to waste trillions of dollars and untold lives in a losing endeavor.
So Ron,
Anyone can point out problems, especially the speculative kind.
Islam is at war with us, and ISIS is the tip of the spear being thrown our way.
So how do you propose handling it, what solutions do you propose?
Let’s wait until we see what the plan is and we don’t have to execute the plan when new developments dictate otherwise (Truce w/o US involvement).
Safe zones will work – US doesn’t necessarily have to physically plant troops to secure these zones; we could provide the money, material, construction with Assad to guard.
Well there’s no point in building up and equipping our military to levels never seen before if you’re not going to use it right? Every president needs a standing army right?
I’m still waiting for Trump to pull the rug out from beneath the neocons but I shant be holding my breath while waiting.
Of course there is.
Deterrence.
Take Switzerland and its military preparedness as an example, and it’s worked for them for a long time now.
Anon…..that was before the Swiss got on their knees to US and are no longer the wealth protection society.
That country is too small to even be a comparison.
Wait 4 or 8 years and TPTB install a Neocon as Pres – how do you think our new, modernized military will be used?
Can’t defeat ISIS without defeating it’s supporters also, the house of Saud, CIA, Mossad, DoD…..
“Safe Zones” in Syria is a terrible idea. Trump needs to call up Tulsi Gabbard who just returned from a trip there, unofficially meeting with Assad. She knows what’s really going on in-country.
IMO if we stop funding and arming these terror groups, then they’ll stop being a nuisance. And stop overthrowing countrie’s elected governments to force our agenda down their throats.