The Guardian reports, John McCain and Lindsey Graham call for 20,000 troops in Syria and Iraq.
Two senior senators called on Sunday for Washington to nearly triple military force levels in Iraq to 10,000 and send an equal number of troops to Syria as part of a multinational ground force to counter Islamic State in both countries.Out of Their Minds
McCain, chairman of the Senate armed services committee, recently proposed intervention in Syria by a European and Arab ground force backed by 10,000 US military advisers and trainers.
On Sunday, he and Graham told reporters during a visit to Baghdad that US personnel could provide logistical and intelligence support to a proposed 100,000-strong force from Sunni Arab countries like Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Graham said special forces would also be included.
US counter-terrorism experts have warned that deploying ground troops risks backfiring by feeding Isis’s apocalyptic narrative that it is defending Islam against an assault by the west and its authoritarian Arab allies.
McCain said it would be possible but not easy to rally Arab allies to contribute to the proposed ground force in Syria.
The senators said removing Assad, who is backed by Russia and Iran, was key to getting Arab Sunni states to back the proposed ground force.
Both Senators are clearly out of their minds.
10,000 advisers out of 20,000 US troops? In a proposed 100,000 multinational force? Do we really need 1 adviser for every US soldier? Do we need 1 adviser for every 10 troops overall? Is it remotely possible for a coalition of the willing to agree to send 100,000 troops to Iraq and Syria?
And by what right does the US get to decide who should or should not rule Syria? Didn't the US make a complete mess in Iraq and Libya with nation building?
And wouldn't taking out Assad risk a major confrontation with Russia? Or is that precisely what they hope?
These guys are among the worst the Republican party has to offer.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
