[Old Retired Army Guy]

You are not going to win anything with 2000 troops in a country filled with the Syrian Army, the Russians, the Iranians, the Kurds, the Turks, Syrian Rebels and A few Al Queda and Isis scattered around. Better to use Pin Point Air Strikes when warranted.

[central_va]

Those 2,000 troops need to be on the US-Mexico border.

[familyop]

"You are not going to win anything with 2000 troops in a country filled with the Syrian Army, the Russians, the Iranians, the Kurds, the Turks, Syrian Rebels and A few Al Queda and Isis scattered around."

That's what the most likely picks for Secretary of Defense said, and what every honest officer will say. They want a larger force in Syria. This was intended to be the time for the last step in the War on Terror, which we were told would last 30 years or more.

There was a strategic reason for the chosen sequence of countries involved. I'm surprised it isn't obvious to more American men...but then not so surprised, given what has happened to our society since 1968.

Maybe President Trump could get Ron Paul to be the Secretary of Defense. That would please Uncle Ivan and his short buddy almost as much as it would our 68er constituency.

[kabar]

We have 15,000 troops in Kuwait and 5,000 in Iraq. There is no need to have troops in Syria. Those advocating our presence in Syria still harbor the hope of taking out Assad. Congress never authorized our presence in Syria, a sovereign country that objects to us being there.

We need to define our objectives and have an exit strategy. Keeping our forces in Syria raises the risk of a conflict with Russia and exposes our troops to unnecessary dangers. Taking out Assad should not be an objective, especially given our lack of knowledge about the opposition. We should not get involved in a civil war.

[Rusty0604]

Exactly.