I'm surprised by how little attention this has gotten in the U.S. press. Whether the U.S. should send ground troops into Syria has been a long-running debate. It came up during the Presidential debates (with Clinton pledging not to have any "American ground forces" in Syria while Trump babbled nonsensically about how many generals like him).
At this point it is only "several hundred" U.S. marines in Syria, and American boots have been on the ground in Iraq fighting ISIS under Obama. But this is a new line that has been crossed, one that the prior administration would not do for fear of trapping the U.S. in the morass of the Syrian civil war. It is possible this will be a temporary deployment, just until Raqqa falls. But is also possible that this is just the beginning of a quiet escalation in American involvement in the Syrian civil war.
At this point it is only "several hundred" U.S. marines in Syria, and American boots have been on the ground in Iraq fighting ISIS under Obama. But this is a new line that has been crossed, one that the prior administration would not do for fear of trapping the U.S. in the morass of the Syrian civil war. It is possible this will be a temporary deployment, just until Raqqa falls. But is also possible that this is just the beginning of a quiet escalation in American involvement in the Syrian civil war.
