crowded in the past 24 hours. we re seeing syrian government forces enter the fray as well as russian troops. the russian forces are in between syrian forces and turkish forces acting as a mediator patrolling in between the two sides trying to fill the vacuum left by u.s. forces. two new players on the scene here in a very complicated battle structure. as you mentioned, president trump going all out to try and find a cease-fire here. calling president erdogan of turkey, invoking financial sanctions as well as dispatching vice president pence here to turkey in the near future. a real effort there that has not borne fruit yet. turkish military offensive still going strong. created 160,000 people on the run. about half of those people are children and many of those families say they simply have nothing at this point. aid agencies can t reach them. here is one.
engagement for our special forces. this was a debate we had for years inside. should we or should we not? what does that mean? i see a little bit of that happening. they have changed some of the rules engagement. complicated to a viewer, but what it means is it s not just advise and assist. it s advice and assist and then maybe take help them leverage on their target success. those are important small things. they re not major changes in the battle structure as you the battle plan as we saw coming out of the obama administration. they re more like a screw driver to a carburetor than massive changes. some would argue that they have seen success from those kinds of changes. now with the bombing, i do think that they are going to have to sit around the table and get the whole of government approach. this can t be a military only solution. they have to if they re not comfortable with state department, then they better put somebody on this task. you have to do both. tony, this is al
what does that mean? i see a little bit of that happening. they have changed some of the rules engagement. complicated to a viewer, but what it means is it s not just advise and assist. it s advice and assist and then maybe take help them leverage on their target success. those are important small things. they re not major changes in the battle structure as you the battle plan as we saw coming out of the obama administration. they re more like a screw driver to a carburetor than massive changes. some would argue that they have seen success from those kinds of changes. now with the bombing, i do think that they are going to have to sit around the table and get the whole of government approach. this can t be a military only solution. they have to if they re not comfortable with state department, then they better put somebody on this task. you have to do both. tony, this is also there s got to be a political solution in iraq so that the last prime minister who frittered away the
specifically referenced the chemical weapons attack, and declaring that a direct threat to u.s. interests. it does not talk about bashar al assad s other military capabilities, which remain significant, and that s the key here. bashar al assad maintains an enormous capability to kill his own people, and the principal way he s done that is not via chemical weapons but barrel bombs, conventional weapons, et cetera, and that he maintains. so, at least so far, no fundamental change to the battle structure and capabilities on the ground. that said, you do have bipartisan support for this. you re hearing it even from members of the obama administration who might have privately counseled the president to go ahead when his red line was crossed. but you re hearing it from republicans as well. have a listen to senator john mccain. this was a response which was required in response to the commission of war crimes. i want to emphasize, this is the beginning and not the end, but