The White House plans to deploy 250 troops to Syria in addition to the 50 troops already stationed there. The White House says the additional troops will be used to help local forces combat ISIS. The US has been conducting airstrikes in Syria for some time, and while airstrikes may be a safer option for troops, a "boots on ground" approach could prove to be more effective. However, there is a huge problem with this approach. The problem with US Special Forces in Syria isn't a question of effectiveness, but it does have the potential to anger a more dangerous foe, Russia. The Kremlin has sent troops to support Syrian President Assad battle rebels and terrorist groups. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has denounced the White House's decision and says the US deployment of troops in Syria is illegal. Russian combat jets recently "buzzed" a US aircraft carrier, the USS Donald Cook. Another Russian combat jet conducted a barrel roll over a US Air Force reconnaissance plane. Russia is clearly not impressed with the US's military might.
The concern I have is with that of POTUS's power to conduct police actions around the world. A police action is a military action without a formal declaration of war. Vladimir Putin has about an 82% approval rating, and there is no indication that Vladimir Putin will be out of office next year. Who will sit in the oval office next year? Will the next President be able to conduct police actions in the middle east and stay on the Kremlin's good side? Will that person be able to keep a cool head? I hope so. I am not a huge fan of the 114th Congress, but maybe we should look to restoring some of their power regarding the issue of troop deployments. President Barrack Obama has said that he wouldn't send troops to Syria, and has since changed his stance. Whatever the reason, the US has an addiction in regards to police actions. Whether it be for safety, freedom, the economy, our allies or an oversized ego, it has become a big problem. Our troops need to fight in order to stay sharp, but they don't need to die if the US has nothing to gain from it.
Russia has announced plans to exit Syria. They may renege and continue to conduct operations leaving the potential for conflict between US and Russian forces. There are two options from here: have faith that the next POTUS will be able to conduct operations without angering a military giant such as Russia, or write to your congressman/congresswoman and tell them to start some legislation reducing the presidents ability to deploy troops at will.
The concern I have is with that of POTUS's power to conduct police actions around the world. A police action is a military action without a formal declaration of war. Vladimir Putin has about an 82% approval rating, and there is no indication that Vladimir Putin will be out of office next year. Who will sit in the oval office next year? Will the next President be able to conduct police actions in the middle east and stay on the Kremlin's good side? Will that person be able to keep a cool head? I hope so. I am not a huge fan of the 114th Congress, but maybe we should look to restoring some of their power regarding the issue of troop deployments. President Barrack Obama has said that he wouldn't send troops to Syria, and has since changed his stance. Whatever the reason, the US has an addiction in regards to police actions. Whether it be for safety, freedom, the economy, our allies or an oversized ego, it has become a big problem. Our troops need to fight in order to stay sharp, but they don't need to die if the US has nothing to gain from it.
Russia has announced plans to exit Syria. They may renege and continue to conduct operations leaving the potential for conflict between US and Russian forces. There are two options from here: have faith that the next POTUS will be able to conduct operations without angering a military giant such as Russia, or write to your congressman/congresswoman and tell them to start some legislation reducing the presidents ability to deploy troops at will.
The article titled “World Police” was an amazing article. First I agree that we should not take lightly the role of the commander in chief. We as a nation are running towards a serious problem when it comes to picking a president. The entire system of popular votes, delegates, and super delegates is finally open for review and scrutiny. Our choices for US President this year is the worst that it has ever been. We are stuck in a position where no one really wants either to become President. That same idealistic sentiment is shared by other countries around the world as well.
ReplyDeleteThe White House plans to deploy 250 more troops to Syria which brings the new total up to 300. This would not be an area of concern if Syria did not have such an enormous population. The country of Syria has a population of 18,554,458 according to the United Nations estimates as of Saturday, May 7, 2016. My question is how is 300 people going to help or control 18.5 million people? Those 300 individuals are outnumbered 62,000 to 1. There is no way that those troops can help in any capacity that would influence a serious enough change in the country.
The author is right in his argument in which he says that the use of US Special Forces in Syria has definitely affected the international political climate in which we operate. The author is also right in his explanation of Russia’s animosity toward the US military. Russia is one of many countries who have an deep emotional disdain idea of the US.
Vladimir Putin is also not going anywhere anytime soon. He has no opposition that has spoken publically about there’re desire to run for President Of Russia. Hilary Clinton has already dealt with President Putin on numerous occasions as Secretary of State. She calls their relationship “Interesting”. While on the other hand Putin can’t say enough good things about Trump! I agree that Congress does need more power when it comes to the military but it going to take some time and patience because our government is very resistant to change. There is definitely no reason for our troops to die in a country really does not want us there to begin with. I agree with the author on that point.
The military chess board is set with Syria being the King or queen on the board. Russia understands that pawns might have to be lost if they want to achieve their underlying goal in the region. We as a country need to become extra neutral when it comes to countries that do not like us and with the ones that do. We need to pull out of all countries including Syria that are just US money pits for our country. If we do not seeing currently any results or have seen any results in the past then it has become a money pit. This author wrote an amazing article about “World Police!”