U.S. Marines with Task Force Spartan, 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), on Fire Base Bell, Iraq, fire an M777A2 Howitzer at an ISIS infiltration route March 18, 2016. (Photo By: Cpl. Andre Dakis)
L.A. Times: Trump administration stops disclosing troop deployments in Iraq and Syria
Even as the U.S. military takes on a greater role in the warfare in Iraq and Syria, the Trump administration has stopped disclosing significant information about the size and nature of the U.S. commitment, including the number of U.S. troops deployed in either country.
Earlier this month, the Pentagon quietly dispatched 400 Marines to northern Syria to operate artillery in support of Syrian militias that are cooperating in the fight against Islamic State, according to U.S. officials. That was the first use of U.S. Marines in that country since its long civil war began.
In Iraq, nearly 300 Army paratroopers were deployed recently to help the Iraqi military in their six-month assault on the city of Mosul, according to U.S. officials.
Neither of those deployments was announced once they had been made, a departure from the practice of the Obama administration, which announced nearly all conventional force deployments.
The decision appears to be making good on Trump’s promise as a candidate to insist on more of an “element of surprise” in battle tactics.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: As to what is my take .... I do understand the need for the public to know .... but if I was a soldier being deployed to a specific conflict zone, I would want the specifics kept secret and the enemy ignorant as long as possible. My prediction .... some middle ground will be found on what can .... and cannot .... be reported.
Exactly, and I don't want to hear anything about SEAL team 6 anymore, just rewind that story about 8 years and get it where it's supposed to be!
ReplyDeleteTrump was right, broadcasting everything thing puts lives at risk.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the public have a need or inherrant right to know?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFazman's right.
ReplyDeleteEditor,
ReplyDeleteYour comment is spot on. Unfortunately as is usually the case when the "middle ground" is found we usually err on the side of to much information being given out about troop deployments risking a compromising the mission.
Fazman asks why the public has a need or a right to know. The reason is this is being done in their names, the lives of our young men and women are being placed in peril, and when the inevitable blowback occurs, we need to be prepared and the voters need to be able make an honest assessment of is the operation worth it.
When things go wrong as they sometimes do, it is going to be America and Americans who are going to bear the brunt of the reprisals/blowback not Australia or Australians. Perhaps if Aussies were on the chopping block to the degree that Americans are you might not so blithely ask this question as to why the public has a need or inherent right to know.
As stated, a balance needs to be found. Unfortunately the balance that is usually found is to much information is given to the public compromising the mission and on top of this the public is generally helpless to stop it anyway or to have a say in whether or not we need to be doing a given operation. This is truly the worst of both worlds. I agree that DJT was right that broadcasting everything puts lives at risk. I would also add it risks compromising the mission.
Guys... honestly.. do you think it's possible to keep the arrival of troops a secret? I like the approach of telling the enemy (not necessarily telling the truth, mind you).. plus, with observers arriving on the ground beforehand you can find out how the enemy is reacting to this (dis)information, where the enemy is positioning itself, etc.. Plus, there's also the psychological aspect.. just before US troops arrive, some people will think long and hard if they want to die for Allah that week or month.. the hardliners, sure.. they'll do anything.. but some (a good percentage) know they will be a burning pile of flesh if they don't leave.
ReplyDeleteThere's pro and cons for both.. I like the middle ground.. disinformation, propaganda and then, when you arrive, do it the good old shock and awe way, and be sure not to run out of breath (bomb kits).. it's just pathetic
Distinguish between 500 troops going to Iraq and here is a map to show you where our 500 troops will be based. Are 500 troops (I make up the figure) advisors or combat or are we not to know? Why not?
ReplyDeleteSorry, bit Democrats/liberals have totally fucked up anything and everything to do with the military.
ReplyDeleteThe Left lawyers up before any troops go anywhere.
Liberal groups like Amnesty speak loudest when complaining about America and sometimes talk about Russia, but only to keep up pretenses.
Then there is the Obama lie about no boots on the gorund.