The answer is "No." The USA has not declared war on Syria and it won't. Syria's Assad was never the reason American advisers returned to the region, it was the methods of the Islamic State. The current governing bodies in Syria are suppose to have a power sharing government. If the Syrian rebels don't want to proceed to a political solution then they are as much of the problem.
October 30, 2014
By David S. Cloud, W. J. Hennigan and Raja Abdulrahim
...Secretary of State John F. Kerry (click here) sought to paper over the problem Thursday, telling a forum in Washington that the proposed proxy army "can have an impact on Assad's decision-making so we can get back to a table where we could negotiate a political outcome, because we all know there is no military resolution of Syria."...
So it is going to take years to build up a substantial force. It has taken nearly a decade already, why should a few more years be surprising. The USA military has an itchy trigger finger. The Neocons in the Defense Department are trying to push the issue because of the elections believing a military invasion is even realistic. The military leaders want a full scale war. The answer is and always has been "No."
...It will take years to train and field a new force capable of launching an offensive against the heavily armed and well-funded Islamic State fighters, who appear well-entrenched in northern Syria, the officers say....
The USA military, along with forces 'on the ground' in the region, have destroyed much of the American munitions ADOPTED by the Islamic State and now they want to put more there only with USA troops rather than local forces. It makes no sense to bring more munitions into a region that needs a political solution far more than it needs continuous and forever war.
Why doesn't the USA military brass admit they never delivered what they said they delivered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not just admit that and the fact doing it again will only result in a greater quagmire than before!!!!!
As soon as any USA military hit the ground in Iraq, the coalition forces would melt away and would result in nothing short of, "Here, you do it."
October 30, 2014
By David S. Cloud, W. J. Hennigan and Raja Abdulrahim
...Secretary of State John F. Kerry (click here) sought to paper over the problem Thursday, telling a forum in Washington that the proposed proxy army "can have an impact on Assad's decision-making so we can get back to a table where we could negotiate a political outcome, because we all know there is no military resolution of Syria."...
So it is going to take years to build up a substantial force. It has taken nearly a decade already, why should a few more years be surprising. The USA military has an itchy trigger finger. The Neocons in the Defense Department are trying to push the issue because of the elections believing a military invasion is even realistic. The military leaders want a full scale war. The answer is and always has been "No."
...It will take years to train and field a new force capable of launching an offensive against the heavily armed and well-funded Islamic State fighters, who appear well-entrenched in northern Syria, the officers say....
The USA military, along with forces 'on the ground' in the region, have destroyed much of the American munitions ADOPTED by the Islamic State and now they want to put more there only with USA troops rather than local forces. It makes no sense to bring more munitions into a region that needs a political solution far more than it needs continuous and forever war.
Why doesn't the USA military brass admit they never delivered what they said they delivered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not just admit that and the fact doing it again will only result in a greater quagmire than before!!!!!
As soon as any USA military hit the ground in Iraq, the coalition forces would melt away and would result in nothing short of, "Here, you do it."
