Posted on 09/05/2013 1:00:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
During a hearing in front of the House Foreign Relations Committee Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the United States would eventually need to put boots on the ground in Syria in order to secure stockpiles of chemical weapons. When pressed on the issue, Kerry quickly walked back the troops on the ground option and stated he was simply "thinking out loud" when he made the statement. A resolution passed by the Senate Armed Service Committee yesterday, leaving wiggle room for troops to be eventually placed on the ground in Syria.
Now, the Daily Mail is reporting the Pentagon knew a year ago that in order to effectively secure chemical weapons, at least 75,000 ground troops would need to be deployed.
Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.
'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.
'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'
Exactly! Nothing good can come of this and everything that CAN go wrong, WILL go wrong and will, again, cost American blood and treasure, and then be swept under the rug.
What next? All the AQ Sleeper Cells in the US get the OK to wake up?
Does ANYONE in this Administration realize we are six days out from 9/11? Do they realize how we are HATED by radical lunatics?
*SHUDDER*
I don’t know a single person who approves, not one.
Only after Hell freezes over, not before
What do you mean airhead Dana Perino? She is very smart, as is Katie Pavlich. I like them both. You don’t need to watch, no one forces you to
You’re right.
Exactly.
You are wrong, her political affiliation is Republican and that is a fact. Do a search, I just did
I KNOW that. She was Bush’s press secretary or something at the end, but I HAVE WATCHED HER ON THE FIVE, and she is a closet liberal. IMO you can’t trust her. If you get her in a position that goes against her basic grain, she’ll hemhaw and stall, trying to remain cloaked, but she is a LIBERAL! No doubt in my mind.
—— What do you mean airhead Dana Perino? ——
Don’t know what he/she means, but I find her to be an insufferable, patronizing, milquetoast, cold, passionless, blueblood-wannabee.
There, I said it.
Can’t knock PeRINO enough.
That would have changed everything
Even my Liberal family members want nothing to do with it.
It appears ears might be some kind of great uniter after all.
That’s why they shoulda MOABed ‘em when they were still in storage prior to Sept. 2012.
>http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/09/28/panetta_we_ve_lost_track_of_syrian_chemical_weapons<
Panetta: We’ve Lost Track of Some Syrian Chemical Weapons
It’s amazing that he’s that awful.
But I thought the goal was more or less, for Obama to wag his finger at Assad to make sure he didn’t do that again. If he in fact did it.
Now they’re talking about this. America, we’ve been down a tough road with these clowns since 2006. Got even worse in 2009. Lord only knows what we’re in for, if he does something.
Definition of “Secure a building”
Marines - Level the building and kill everyone in it.
Army - Surround the building and prohibit anyone from entering or leaving.
Navy - Lock all the doors and windows.
Air Force - buy it at the highest possible price.
Source: I don’t remember
Re: “Securing Syrian Chemical Weapons Would Take 75,000 Ground Troops.”
More like 25,000.
Trying to secure Syria, however, would take 750,000.
How many U.S. and coalition ground troops went into Iraq in 2003? There were approximately 195,000 troops in the initial invasion. We were unable to secure the WMD's with the force size used in that war. We will not be able to secure WMD's in Syria with only 75,000 ground troops. This is another lie being propagated by the liberal idiots who are out to destroy America.
I have an even better idea - let’s send in the new combat regiment known as the fighting 69th!
From orbit. Just to be sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.