The Pentagon is famous for being unable to keep track of things. Money? Not sure where it went. Inventory? “We have stuff, but are not sure how much, where it is, or how much has disappeared.”
But soldiers in war zones? You would think they would have at least good, rough numbers of how many were stationed where.
Ah, you sweet summer child. Counting is hard and all those REMFs have other things to do like push DEI and get soldiers the gender-affirming care they need.
The Pentagon now says there are more US soldiers deployed to Syria than what they reported before.
From 900 to 2000.pic.twitter.com/P90fKF5Q5a
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) December 19, 2024
Most Americans are likely unaware that American troops are stationed in Syria–you know, that country that just went through a civil war that lasted more than a decade. But those who have been following the issue “knew” that around 900 troops were there on counter-terror missions because, well, the Pentagon kept saying so.
Well, you knew wrong because the Pentagon isn’t very good at counting.
More Than Twice as Many U.S. Troops Are in Syria Than Previously Disclosed – The New York Times https://t.co/3ttj4QbDKv
— william . neuheisel (@wneuheisel) December 20, 2024
Misplacing 1100 troops is a bit of an oops, and the explanation is that they weren’t on permanent deployment to the region, if there is such a thing. They were rotated in and out as needs changed over time. Of course, the same could be said of the 900 troops the Pentagon had acknowledged. Last I checked, none of these soldiers has put down roots in the war-ravaged country and is planning to live and raise a family there.
The Pentagon said on Thursday that 2,000 American troops were in Syria, more than twice the number officials had cited for months.
Why the Defense Department delayed disclosing the number is unclear. Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters that he became aware of the additional troops on Thursday morning. They are in Syria on a “temporary” basis, he said, to support what he called the “core official deployed forces” participating in the Pentagon’s mission to keep Islamic State forces from reconstituting.
General Ryder said the increase in the number of troops was unrelated to the fall of President Bashar al-Assad to rebel forces in early December.
This would be forgivable if 50 or 100 extra troops were cycling in and out at any one time, but given that the number provided was off by more than 100% the error is pretty glaring. That isn’t a random fluctuation due to exigent circumstances; that is a genuine undercount.
Cynic that I am, you would think that my first thought is that the Public Affairs Officers at the Pentagon were lying about the number of soldiers stationed in Syria, but in this case, I am inclined to attribute the “mistake” to simple incompetence and bureaucratic language. I can easily imagine a spokesman asking a flunkie for the number of troops “stationed” in Syria and somebody just looking at a list and spitting out the number listed in a category on a spreadsheet.
“Oh, those other 1100? They are in a different category. Oops.”
Of course, everybody wanted answered: “How many American boots are on the ground or involved in the Syria mission?” This question, likely to a bureaucrat, is a vastly different one.
Perhaps this is why the Pentagon can’t answer the simplest questions–the bureaucracy is so large and overcomplicated that it is impossible to find out things without wildly complicated formulas to tease out every category that might apply to the simplest question.
Of course, I could be wrong, and some political figure, either inside or outside the Pentagon, was intentionally downplaying the number. It’s not like things like that don’t happen. After all, the Pentagon apparently misled Trump about how many troops were in Syria, and has a history of opacity when it doesn’t want us to know the answers to tough questions.
If the day ends in “y,” then SOMEBODY in the government is lying to you.
Either way, being off by such a large margin is tough to forgive and is yet another example of why you should trust nothing being said to you by the government.
Read the full article here