US troops for Jordan

Obama Sends More Troops To Jordan, Preparing For "Stability Operations" In Syria

Zero Hedge,

18 April, 2013

Fresh from his humiliating defeat in the Senate to promote his pacifist gun-control agenda yesterday, in the name of the "90%" of course (who apparently need to pick their senatorial representative just a little more effectively), the Nobel Peace Prize winner has decided that guns just may be the right answer when it comes to promoting peace, or least his agenda abroad. WaPo reports that  the Obama administration has ordered additional U.S. troops to Jordan for possible chemical weapons control, humanitarian response or “stability operations” in Syria. "The new troops, a headquarters element of the 1st Armored Division based at Fort Bliss, Tex., will not greatly increase the number of U.S. forces in Jordan. About 150 troops were sent last year to help train Jordanian military and Syrian opposition forces. Some of those troops will remain, and the new arrivals will increase the total to more than 200."

So just your ordinary garden variety, vanilla regiment of heavily-armed US troops making landfall in a foreign sovereign which would prefer to have no US presence at all, but who cares what they think. Maybe as a sign of goodwill with the 90%, the Pacifist-in-Chief will order these latest troops to have no assault rifles or extended clips. As for what this latest US landfall means for the escalating Syria conflict, we hardly need to comment on that.

But in case we do, here is the WaPo:

The dispatch of a headquarters unit indicates a higher level of preparation for a possible expanded U.S. military role, including command and control capability for a larger force.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told Congress that he authorized the deployment last week to “improve readiness and prepare for a number of scenarios.”

Both Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made clear in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that President Obama has not ordered any U.S. military intervention in Syria.

“We don’t have a consensus on this issue . . . on what America’s role should be,” Hagel said.

Well, "we would" if we thought discovering some non-existent WMDs in Damascus would make Russia look away and allow the US entrance and the ability to secure the country so very critical for the passage of various key gas pipeline routes. Which of course, would reduce Russia's influence on Europe where it still has monopoly energy providing power, and where its full fury and anger at the Cyprus fiasco will be felt next winter when Germans get their heating bills.

But for now the US is stumped just how to escalate this particular conflict.

The deteriorating situation in Syria, where more than 70,000 people have died and millions have been displaced, appears to be pushing the administration closer to a decision. But a high level of uncertainty and disagreement over what to do was reflected in the contentious hearing Wednesday.

Dempsey testified several months ago that he agreed with senior national security officials who recommended arming the rebel military force. When asked by McCain whether he would still make that recommendation, Dempsey said the situation was “more complicated now.”

“My military judgment is that now that we’ve seen the emergence of al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham, and seen photos of weapons in the hands of those groups, I’m more concerned than I was before,” he said, referring to leading rebel factions that espouse extreme Islamist goals and have been linked to al-Qaeda by the U.S. government.

“If we could clearly identify the right people, I would support it,” Dempsey said.

But both Dempsey and Hagel said cohesion within the Syrian opposition has decreased in recent months, making military support more risky.

Translated: Russia continue to just say niet. But just in case they relent, the nobel prize winner shown below is ready to murder everyone in America's path toward Qatari natural gas pipeline liberation.