U.S. has more than doubled troops in Syria, hides expansion for years

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

U.S. military has more than doubled troop presence in Syria, increasing from 900 to about 2,000 troops.
The Pentagon has been hiding the true number of troops in Syria, raising questions about the government’s intentions.
The surge in troops coincides with the ousting of President Assad, potentially leading to conflicts with Israel and Turkey.
The U.S. has a history of getting involved in conflicts with unclear objectives, often resulting in long-term commitments with no clear end in sight.
Analysts advocate for more transparency and a shift towards diplomatic solutions instead of military engagements in Syria and other volatile regions.

In a shocking revelation that’s been kept under wraps for far too long, the U.S. military has more than doubled its troop presence in Syria, a move that’s not only unsettling but raises serious questions about our government’s intentions.

Department of Defense officials finally broke their silence on Thursday, Dec. 19, admitting that they’ve been harboring roughly 2,000 troops in Syria, far more than the 900 they’ve been peddling for years.

Analysts argue that what the Pentagon has done is not just a case of a simple miscalculation but a continuation of a pattern seen far too often: the U.S. wading into conflicts without a clear plan, hiding behind the false pretense of doing what’s “necessary” and dragging itself further into trouble.

The U.S. has been playing a dangerous game in the Middle East, critics point out. With the recent ouster of President Assad in Syria, people thought that the U.S. government would be taking a step back, not pouring more troops into the region. Instead, the nation not only increased its presence but has done so under a shroud of secrecy, leaving allies and enemies alike guessing at its intentions. (Related: The new normal: U.S. shows unwavering support for Israel’s aggression, including its Syrian incursion.)

Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder tried to downplay the significance of the troop surge, claiming it’s been there “for a while” and was never directly related to the chaos in Syria. This massive uptick in troops happened just as Assad was getting the boot, and any self-respecting military analyst would call that a red flag.

Ryder also tried to pass it off as “diplomatic considerations,” however, the Pentagon has a long history of playing this undisclosed card. It’s been a go-to tactic for covering up how many troops the U.S. really has in these hot zones.

For critics, one particularly alarming aspect of this revelation is the potential for these newly discovered troops to become embroiled in conflicts with Israel and Turkey, two countries that have been flexing their muscles inside Syria’s borders.

Israel’s air strikes against Assad’s regime and Turkey’s offensive against Kurdish forces – both of which have partnered with the U.S. in the fight against ISIS – have the potential to pull these troops into a multi-front nightmare.

Moreover, the U.S. has been playing a similar game in Afghanistan, only recently acknowledging the true number of troops deployed there. It’s like the government has a bad case of the jitters whenever they have to come clean about military commitments in these sensitive regions.

Analysts hope Trump stops future military deployments

President-elect Donald Trump has been a vocal critic of U.S. involvement in Syria, and he’s no doubt going to have a say in future troop deployments.

But this isn’t about one man or even one administration. It’s about a fundamental shift in how the U.S. approaches its military commitments abroad.

The world has seen this before: surge in troops, lose sight of the original objective, get sucked into a series of escalating conflicts, and end up with a long, drawn-out commitment with no clear end in sight.

Is another round of withdrawals and resignations likely, similar to what occurred when Trump attempted to pull troops out during his first term? Or will there finally be a genuine, honest conversation about the costs and benefits of the continued presence in Syria?

The U.S. has a long history of getting dragged into conflicts it has no business being involved in, often under the guise of stopping bad guys like ISIS. But this latest revelation in Syria is just another reminder that the nation needs to be far more cautious about where it sends the troops and how to manage the country’s military engagements abroad.

Analysts insist that the U.S. needs to stop falling into this trap of joining Israel’s multi-front wars and instead focus on a diplomatic solution that addresses the root causes of these conflicts. The country cannot continue to pour more troops into areas where there’s no clear path to victory or where the battlefield keeps shifting and evolving.

Head over to Chaos.news for stories related to this.

Watch the video below that talks about the Israeli army saturating Syria with heavy equipment.

This video is from Cynthia’s Pursuit of Truth channel on Brighteon.com.