Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria

[paulitician]

Hey come on, he got a Peace Prize. He's good. Leave em alone.

 

[TNHarley]

Obama could save a Christian baby from a muslim and they would complain about him..
Have you people ever considered he is doing this because you guys wouldn't shut the fuck up?
I wouldn't STFU about it, but I am not bitching. Get it?

While I doubt the opposing outcries one way or the other didn't spur Mr. Obama's actions, I give props to you specifically props for acting with integrity as indicated by your closing statement. It is rare in these days of Internet fueled "No, I from my living room sofa know better than you do, Mr. President" and "politics of obstruction/no" attitudes, to find men and women of genuine principle. Kudos.

I agree, it was just to elaborate on my point.
Thanks 320

 

[rdean]

Maybe he finally gave in to Republicans who kept screaming for him to send more troops.

 

[Flash]

Maybe he finally gave in to Republicans who kept screaming for him to send more troops.

Actually President Shit for Brains has been a Neocon wet dream.

He has been at war every day of his administration.

He fought the war in Iraq for three years, proclaimed it a success, sent troops back in, resumed the bombing, escalated the war in Afghanistan, promised to keep thousands of troops there indefinitely, bombed Libya and now has sent combat troops to Syria.

That is one war mongering sonofabitch, isn't he? The Neocons couldn't have picked a better guy, could they?

 

[Wildman]

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

and a demoscum/libertard liar chimes in with a LIE!!

 

[Wildman]

No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria'

if there is only ONE U.S. soldier in Syria, there ARE boots on the ground..., ya knoe.., one on each foot!!

 

[CowboyTed]

Maybe he finally gave in to Republicans who kept screaming for him to send more troops.

I don't think the crazies get it... Circumstances change.

Obama is making decisions on what is best at the time. Two years ago it was no boots now conditions have changed and the decision changed...

The crazies don't seem to understand a leader's actual job...

 

[CowboyTed]

We know he's a f*ing liar. It seems to be a necessary trait to run for office as a Democrat.

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If you will call Hillary and Kerry liars, I may agree with you.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

You have shown Kerry and Clinton guilty of one thing. Believing the President of the US two years after an attack on their soil.

You don't blame the administration which told lie after lie...

 

[TooTall]

We know he's a f*ing liar. It seems to be a necessary trait to run for office as a Democrat.

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If you will call Hillary and Kerry liars, I may agree with you.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

You have shown Kerry and Clinton guilty of one thing. Believing the President of the US two years after an attack on their soil.

You don't blame the administration which told lie after lie...

Do you call these statements lies as well? They all got their intel from the same CIA that Bush inherited from Clinton. I have dozens more, all stated during the Clinton Administration by leading Democrats.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Sourc

 

[The Rabbi]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe he finally gave in to Republicans who kept screaming for him to send more troops.

I don't think the crazies get it... Circumstances change.

Obama is making decisions on what is best at the time. Two years ago it was no boots now conditions have changed and the decision changed...

The crazies don't seem to understand a leader's actual job...

Two years ago? Try two weeks ago. Virtually nothing there has changed, except Obama's previous strategy has been shown to have failed.
Now all the libtards who were complaining that conservatives wanted to send American kids to die in the desert are all on board with the idea and complaining conservatives oppose whatever Obama does.
Hey, maybe we oppose whatever he does because he has a 100% record of failure. Doing the opposite of whatever Obama has done would have yielded better results.

 

[320 Years of History]

The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley.
― Robert Burns, Collected Poems of Robert Burns

Truly, it doesn't matter if the man stated 1,600 times that he wouldn't send our servicemen to fight on the ground in Syria. The fact is that each time he made the statement, one or more high or low level details -- those pertaining to the situation in Syria, ISIS/ISIL, Assad, Syrian Rebels, Russia, and the rest of the world that is affected by it -- were different than they are now. If it were today sunny, and you asserted that you won't ever wear a raincoat and it next month rained, would you stand in the rain getting soaked and look like a wet dog, or would you don a raincoat?

Domestic and foreign policy matters are fluid. They issue from the actions of highly unpredictable, sometimes capricious humans. A good leader sets a tack in accordance with the conditions as they present themselves. No matter how calm the seas now, if a maelstrom appears in the water, only a foolish captain, rather than plot a new course, would stay the course and sail into it. About the only thing more supercilious than holding against him taking the replotted course, is deriding him for doing so and insisting that he sail into the whirlpool.

Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

 

[The Rabbi]

BUllshit. Please detail what exactly changed to change what Obama was doing? I mean, other than the total and gross failure of his policies.

By your explanation, every flip flop is explainable because no 2 days are the same. No 2 moments either.

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

 

[320 Years of History]

International politics is never about democracy and human rights. It's about the interests of states.
― Egon Bahr


First off, if you want to refute my claim, fine, but that merely calling BS and not citing specific, key factors that have not changed doesn't make it so that they have not changed. If you are genuinely asking me share what specifics support my assertion, that's fine too. But why the vulgarity, and why the platitude about "gross failure" that has no direct relation to the matter specifically being discussed?

I realise you perhaps live too far from Syria to have heard Russian bombs exploding in Russia's initial, late September air strikes. Most obviously, therefore, one thing that's changed is the balance of power in the region resulting from Russia assuming an overt role in the Syrian civil war, and the prospect of having a U.S.-favoring Syrian government following the end of the Syrian civil war is what changed. Prior to the recent past, what exactly was Syria? It was (and it largely still is) a piss-ant country that has no natural resources of note, no particularly strategic geographical place in the region, with a GDP that's about half of Bill Gates' net worth, it's not about to be a meaning trading partner in the balance of trade, and it and its leader, Assad, poses no meaningful threat to U.S. Given its relative irrelevance, it made sense not to send troops to Syria, and it made sense to deal with the ISIS presence there using a detached approach.

Syria has long been allied with Russia. Though U.S., with the intent of shifting Syrian allegiance more favorably toward U.S., could have taken qutie some time ago taken more hands-on action toward aiding the Rebel forces, the impetus to do so -- Russia's latest moves -- didn't exist. Moreover, as is pretty much always the case, the will to put boots on the ground, as usual, didn't exist among the U.S. citizenry. That's not to say that the will exists now, but extant now is the need for U.S. to take at least a small active role there, if only so that U.S. retain a legitimate and meaningful role as a key player at the table of leaders who manage the affairs of that region.

Looking at the nature and extent of Russia's assistance to Assad, one sees that the democracy seeking rebel forces feature prominently among the targets. From Russia's and Assad's point of view, why shouldn't they? Assad and Russia have long been allied. The Rebel forces are more favorable to U.S., and they want Assad deposed. Sure, neither Russia nor Assad have much to gain from ISIS/ISIL, but U.S. is going to deal with that group regardless of how the politics of Syria pan out. Russia and Assad would be best off with ISIS/ISIL out of the picture as well, but from their point of view, the Rebels, with their U.S. and other Western supporters make more sense, for Assad and thus Russia, to quash first.

U.S. on the other hand, wants Assad and ISIS gone, and the only group in Syria having that aim is the Rebels. For a time the Rebels gained ground against Assad, and with ISIS also eroding his power, it was inevitable that Russia stepped to his aid. Russia is physically involved, and to have any hope of effecting a democratic, or at least a sympathetic non-democratic regime, we need to be as well. So that's the key thing that's changed.

Notwithstanding the changes and factors noted above, there is also the human intelligence benefit of having a small unit of special forces on the ground. I'm not clandestine intelligence operative or analyst, but I know still that some information can only be gathered by people. A small team of 50 operatives/special forces should surely, if only serendipitously, prove valuable in that regard as well. I'm not suggesting that intelligence gathering is enough of a reason to establish an overt presence, but it's surely part of what occurs in conjunction with it. Has there become a pressing need or opportunity to gather human intelligence in Syria, one that didn't exist a year ago? I really don't know, but I don't see it as implausible that one or several have, and I know damn well that nobody is going to publicly discuss any such need or how we satisfy it.

A country that demands moral perfection in its foreign policy will achieve neither perfection nor security.
― Henry Kissinger

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
― Amos Tversky



You will recall that I stated that Mr. Obama is now willing to entertain "putting boots on the ground" because the situation in Syria now differs from what it was when he earlier indicated he didn't intend or want to do that. In response to my comment, you asked "what changed," citing that Russia and Syria (Assad) have long been allied. I answered that question by stating that the change is Russia, in late September, shifting from a passive to active role in Syria's civil war, and their doing so constitutes a material change in the situation.

• Do you claim that Russia's active participation in the conflict does not constitute a change in the situation in Syria?
• Do you assert that the active role of a near-superpower nation is insignificant? If so, why so?

If you want me to provide specific reasons why putting men in the field in Syria, rather than opting for an alternative course of action, is the best choice, fine, but I'll tell you now, I am not privy to the situational facts, facts that are likely held only by our (or the Rebel, ISIS, Russian and Syrian's) military and civilian intelligence organs, that will show why "boots on the ground" is the appropriate course of action and why it was inappropriate two years ago.

• Do you have any specific details about the situation that show why (or why not) an overt military presence of ~50 special forces troops is the wrong course of action now or before?

Though not related to the discussion you and I have been having, I see a small bit of what you might consider double-speak in the information shared by Administration spokespeople. On the one hand, White House Press Secretary Earnest stated, "These forces do not have a combat mission;" however, an Administration official (I don't know who specifically) also has stated that "They could also join Syrian and Kurdish forces on raids if they get explicit permission from Washington."

I think you might consider those two statements as prevarication because you are arguing that once a person has made a statement of position, they must never divorce themselves from that position. Well, it's nice, at times noble, to remain so committed, but doing so when events militate for not doing so is just silly.

The only thing that materially distinguishes the character of the Administration's statements about the troops being sent to Syria and Mr. Obama's statements in 2013 that we wouldn't send any, is that the former pair of statements together explicitly indicate that the Administration hopes not to use our men in combat, but it may become necessary to do so, whereas before, Mr. Obama left it up to the audience to infer that, if circumstances change, we may have to send troops to Syria. His blunder was in assuming that people would be able use common sense and make that inference. Sadly, we observe from comments in this thread that some clearly cannot.



The aim of scientific thought, then, is to apply past experience to new circumstances; the instrument is an observed uniformity in the course of events. By the use of this instrument it gives us information transcending our experience, it enables us to infer things that we have not seen from things that we have seen; and the evidence for the truth of that information depends on our supposing that the uniformity holds good beyond our experience.
― William Kingdon Clifford, Lectures and Essays by the Late William Kingdon Clifford, F.R.S.

 

[rdean]

We know he's a f*ing liar. It seems to be a necessary trait to run for office as a Democrat.

like when Bush said he'd run a humble foreign policy?

and lied about WMD's in iraq..... ???

If you will call Hillary and Kerry liars, I may agree with you.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

You have shown Kerry and Clinton guilty of one thing. Believing the President of the US two years after an attack on their soil.

You don't blame the administration which told lie after lie...

Do you call these statements lies as well? They all got their intel from the same CIA that Bush inherited from Clinton. I have dozens more, all stated during the Clinton Administration by leading Democrats.


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Sourc

And yet, it wasn't Democrats who invaded.

 

[The Rabbi]

Assad and the Russians have been allied forever. It was Putin who stymied Obama's plan to bomb Assad.
Again, what changed other than Obama's obvious failure in Syria? Was Obama lying when he said there would be no boots on the ground?

Lord, have mercy! Did you not make it to the first and second sentences in the second paragraph of my reply? Did you not notice in the news that in late September 2015 the Russian commitment to Mr. Assad shifted from passive to active? Does Russian military personnel's executing their first Syrian civil war related bomb strikes in 2015 not indicate to you that something has changed in the nature of things in Syria between the first time Mr. Obama made that assertion in 2013 and September 2105?

I don't know exactly what impetus moved Mr. Putin to authorize his forces to actively bomb targets in Syria, but that he did in September 2015, and had not before then so done, tells me that something has changed. We civilians may not know, indeed we don't need to know, what specifically has changed. Russia's actions, using their own fighters and personnel to drop bombs, alone tell us that something significant has changed.

Red:
Right now, I'd say, no, Mr. Obama was not lying. What he was doing was stating his then current thinking with regard to the nature and extent of U.S. military action he was willing to authorize given the conditions at the time. The atmosphere in Syria differs now from what it was then; accordingly, the actions Mr. Obama will countenance have too.

So how does Russia's involvement necessitate Obama putting boots on the ground?
You're not making much sense here. And using lots of space to do it.

If it's really necessary for me to explain to you how Russia's engaging their own military forces to drop bombs in Syria alters the profile of the situation, you and I don't have anything more to discuss.

No, idiot. You have yet to show:
1) How Russia sending troops necessitates Obama sending troops.
2) That Russia's move caused Obama's move
3) That Obama's move is in response to something other than the gross failure of his previous policies
4) That Obama understands that he has reversed course from what he said.

It's frightening to think that you might not know something, but more frightening to think that, by and large, the world is run by people who have faith that they know exactly what is going on.
― Amos Tversky



You will recall that I stated that Mr. Obama is now willing to entertain "putting boots on the ground" because the situation in Syria now differs from what it was when he earlier indicated he didn't intend or want to do that.

OK we can stop right there.
Now, please post anywhere that Obama said he was putting boots on the ground in response to Russia's moves in Syria.

 

[rdean]

Um, watching the GOP leadership, the problem isn't he put boots on the ground. They feel he did put enough.

 

[hazlnut]

You know... like if you like your doctor.... so on and so forth....

-Geaux

--------------------------
One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.

emarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

The rest follow here

Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria | Zero Hedge

So, things changed.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't want boots on the ground but I this ideological back and forth is pure bs.
Republicans will conjure up any excuse for a President with an R to put boots on the ground and Democrats will grumble.
And vice versa.

 

[Geaux4it]

You know... like if you like your doctor.... so on and so forth....

-Geaux

--------------------------
One thing you might have noticed if you watched White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest trying to explain to reporters why embedding US spec ops with the YPG in Syria doesn’t amount to putting US boots on the ground, is that despite the fact that there are any number of more important questions the media should be asking about the new “plan” (see our full account here), Americans are far more concerned about the apparent contradiction between Obama’s “new” strategy and statements he’s made with regard to US forces in Syria in the past.

Indeed, nearly every question Earnest fielded revolved around whether The White House is set to recant on the administration’s pledge not to put American “combat” forces in Syria.

emarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

"In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

"After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope."

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

"So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

"I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we're talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that's a sober decision."

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

"The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we'll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility."

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

"What we're not talking about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground. Any action we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so."

The rest follow here

Here Are 16 Times Obama Promised No "Boots On The Ground" In Syria | Zero Hedge

So, things changed.

uh huh.... sure they did.....

-Geaux