8 times Obama said there would be no ground troops or no combat mission in Syria

[morningfog]

The White House is announcing Friday that a small number of special forces will be put on the ground in the fight against the Islamic State in Syria -- a new strategy that pretty clearly contradicts past Obama and administration statements that U.S. forces would not be put on the ground there. As the United States got drawn into the fight against the Islamic State earlier this year, the White House repeatedly emphasized this point -- a move to assure the nation that we wouldn't be drawn into a new war like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Asked Friday about the incongruence of Obama's past comments and putting these boots on the ground, White House press secretary Josh Earnest repeatedly emphasized that these are not combat troops -- a distinction that many disagree with, we would note -- and suggested promises to not put boots on the ground were being taken "out of context."

“You’ve read one quote that, to be fair, is out of context," he said when NBC's Kristen Welker pointed to Obama saying in 2013 there would be no U.S. boots on the ground.

But Obama has actually said no boots on the ground repeatedly in 2013, before adjusting his language slightly -- but notably -- in 2014.

Here's a recap of how he -- and one of his top foreign policy aides -- have talked about it, in 10 quotes.




Aug. 20, 2013

"Again, I repeat: We’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach."

-Obama at a press conference at the White House with Baltic leaders on



Aug. 30, 2013

"And 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."

-Obama in remarks with the presidents of Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia at the White House



Aug. 31, 2013

"Now, 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."

-Obama in a statement on Syria at the White House

Sept. 7, 2013

"What we’re talking about is not an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on the ground."

-Obama in his weekly address



Sept. 9, 2013

"This will not be Iraq or Afghanistan. There will be no American boots on the ground — period."

-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice



Sept. 10, 2013

"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria."

-Obama in a televised national address from the White House



More recently, in 2014, Obama talked less about "no boots on the ground" and more about those hypothetical troops not having a "combat" mission or be actually fighting — a distinction the White House keyed on Friday.



Sept. 5, 2014

"With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria."

-Obama in remarks at a NATO conference



Sept. 10, 2014

"I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil."

-Obama in his plan to destroy the Islamic State



Sept. 19, 2014

"The president has ruled out the option of deploying American boots on the ground in Iraq and in Syria in a combat role."

-Earnest in a press briefing



Sept. 20, 2014

"I won’t commit our troops to fighting another ground war in Iraq, or in Syria."

-Obama in his weekly address

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/30/5-times-president-obama-said-there-would-be-no-ground-troops-or-no-combat-mission-in-syria/

[sakabatou]

1. And now we're going in

It'll be a never ending war, won't it?

[morningfog]

3. Of course it will never end. We are sending US troops into fractured 5 year civil war.

[Hortensis]

13. LOL. Guess the strategic picture has changed with conditions.

Not, of course, that much ever changes in such a quiet and stable part of the world.

People who don't like that, though, might want to take a good look at Trump. I have a feeling that, having made his "perfect" decisions, he'd very seldom feel any need to change them. Whoops -- except to get attention....? Not to worry. Things that aren't about him are usually really boring, after all.

[link:https://www.donaldjtrump.com/|

[randys1]

4. BAd news, but thank god the cons are not in charge, take the world of shit we are mired in

and triple it if they get in.

[Hortensis]

17. Amen! (Anyone for a nice, bloody Crusade?) :)

[giftedgirl77]

56. Sometimes I really think it would be better not to say anything.

Apparently they don't realize we do this for a living. I volunteered for all my deployments & would have gone more if I hadn't gotten sick. At least he didn't commit 50,000 to go. But it's what we do, especially special forces.

[randys1]

88. Rangers? Active?

[giftedgirl77]

89. Active Army & many of us love deploying.

The moneys great & it's much easier just living around military & TCNs.

[BeyondGeography]

5. I see wiggle room

And he took it. Big surprise.

[morningfog]

6. There is no wiggle room. US troops are going into open ended combat in Syria. Period.

[BeyondGeography]

10. We'll see

Those of us who haven't figured it all out already, that is.

[morningfog]

14. Oh, what is the end date? I must have missed it when Obama reneged on his promise today.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Are Special Forces special because they wear bunny slippers? K&R

[B Calm]

8. I don't always agree 100% with everything he does. But this

war is one reason why I voted for Obama. Our involvement in the Middle East needs to end. Russia took up the battle, so why not step back and watch them waste their money there!

[arcane1]

12. But then who will defend our precious oil and gas industries?

Won't someone finally act on their behalf????

[B Calm]

15. I guess we'll just have to start using more alternative energy sources.

[hifiguy]

23. Yep. The Russians will be up to their asses in quicksand

within six months. Seems NOBODY learned a goddamn thing from either Vietnam or Afghanistan.

[Blue_Tires]

9. Those were all before Russia decided to get balls-deep...

I guess the situation changed?

[TwilightGardener]

37. What difference should that make? Unless it's not all purely about

fighting ISIS...

[Caretha]

67. Why would we fight ISIS?

We invented ISIS. Now we're pissed because Russia is taking out our home boys who are supposed to take out Assad

Where has everyone on DU been for the past 12 months. JEESH!!!!

[msongs]

11. not boots...comfortable shoes. he's not wearing his so they are available lol nt

[JI7]

16. foreign policy never works like that

[morningfog]

18. If by "that," you mean deploying troops in countries which have not invited us, I agree.

[JI7]

20. you ignore the situation in syria

It's fine if you are against any involvement. But this isn't Norway .

[morningfog]

21. You think we'll resolve it with 50 commandos? lol.

[JI7]

24. no

[morningfog]

25. So, what will it take? At what cost?

What price, number of US troops and causalties is it worth?

Syria is a total wasteland of a war zone. 5 years of a bloody and badly divided civil war that we have no place in.

[JI7]

28. i don't know

The whole situation there is fucked up.

I do think the wealthy arab nations need do do a lot more.

[Scootaloo]

81. Actually they need ot do a whole lot LESS

You don't think Daesh is getting its money by selling artisanal yoghurt, do you?

[Fumesucker]

51. Denmark, America isn't Denmark...

I guess Americans won't be able to tell the difference between Denmark and Norway until we have a war with one or the other or both.

[hifiguy]

63. Most people in this benighted idiocracy

couldn't find either on a map.

[Shandris]

19. Is anyone surprised truly? We were TOLD years ago Syria was next to fall. PNAC.

So our fomenting a civil war didn't accomplish it, no problems. We've got ISIS. Oh that isn't enough? Well, we've still got our troops.

But know one thing: the Plan (tm) is going to proceed, and WE have no say in it.

[dreamnightwind]

65. +1 for the PNAC reminder

[Caretha]

69. Congratulations!

You have just won the only right answer post on DU today!

It's like everyone here has been living under a damn rock regarding Syria and what has been happening with our illegal war mongering fucking out of control illegal satanic MIC and OUR gawd damn damnable US Government.

Please turn left at the next turnstile and collect your reward

[hifiguy]

22. Guess what?

He lied.

[MissDeeds]

46. Repeatedly. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

48. Yeah, shocker.

[pnwmom]

61. How is it a lie for him to say that in 2013 and 2014 he was ruling out a military response?

Now, a year or two later, he's decided to send troops. That doesn't make his previous statements lies. They were addressing then current conditions.

The statements didn't bind him for all time, no matter what happened in Syria in the interim.

[hifiguy]

62. Please, just give the unconvincing apologetics a rest.

I will NOT engage on this subject. There's nothing to add to what has been said in this thread.

[still_one]

78. Funny Bernie Supports Obama in Keeping troops in Afghanistan.....

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday that he supports President Barack Obama's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan, prolonging the war beyond 2016.

Obama announced last week that he would keep 5,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan after he leaves office in 2017, breaking his promise to end the war during his tenure. He originally planned to maintain only a small military presence based at the U.S. embassy there.

During an interview on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday morning, host George Stephanopoulos asked Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, whether he backs keeping U.S. troops in the country.

"Well, yeah, I won't give you the exact number. Clearly, we do not want to see the Taliban gain more power, and I think we need a certain nucleus of American troops present in Afghanistan to try to provide the training and support the Afghan army needs," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-afghanistan_5623b601e4b08589ef47bdaa

We all know situations don't change, right?

[LittleBlue]

74. +1000

[WDIM]

26. I wanna know what happens when Russia bombs the rebels

and kills our troops? WWIII?

[morningfog]

27. Obama and Kerry made clear that the true goal is toppling Assad.

Russia backs him. This will not end well.

[WDIM]

32. Exactly Russia is already bombing US backed factions in Syria.

Having our troops on the ground where Russia is bombing sounds like the powers that be are trying to start WWIII.

[Waldorf]

40. We toppled Saddam. That didn't work out so well. Wonder why they think toppling Assad

will be a different story.

[FiveGoodMen]

45. They DON'T think it will be different

The 'people' who commit us to these conflicts are getting what they want out of it.

(Power, money, impunity since it's all to 'protect our way of life', blah, blah, blah)

[Scootaloo]

82. What do you mean? It worked out perfectly

You don't think the goal was the flowering of peace and democracy, did you?

[guillaumeb]

33. The President will then, only with great reluctance, and after much soul

searching, commit combat forces. He will, of course, say all this with a very grave look and in a solemn tone. And in very nuanced, elegant sentences. After that, more US troops will be wasted in the endless game of Empire and geopolitics. It has been thus in the US since the Monroe Doctrine first established the US Empire and codified the idea that the US has a right to interfere in the affairs of every country on earth.

[WDIM]

35. Then add a front in Ukraine and a front in the South China sea

WWIII

We'll all be lucky to get out of this alive.

[guillaumeb]

36. I like your spirit, soldier.

Can we also add in a front in Venezuela?

Remember, war stimulates the economy.

[WDIM]

38. Obama is playing a dangerous game that could quickly

escalate into Mushroom clouds and all out war and hell on Earth

There will be no economy at that point.

[guillaumeb]

39. And this is a game that many Presidents play, with no thought for the consequences.

During the Kennedy Presidency, the President was also surrounded by very intelligent advisors who misread the situation with horrific consequences for the Vietnamese people and the US.

Kennedy was of course following the example of Truman in interfering in the affairs of other countries.

[hifiguy]

47. But JFK was one cool customer,

very pragmatic, and very smart. Having his equally smart brother close at hand didn't hurt either. Neither trusted the military or the CIA any farther than they could throw the WH.

John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev together saved the world from nuclear war. Neither wanted it. The hard-liners in both DC and Moscow very much wanted it.

JFK went against the military and the CIA, repeatedly. Which explains the brevity of his presidency in no uncertain terms.

[guillaumeb]

49. He was very smart. As is our current President.

But it seems that sometimes smart people feel that they are so smart that they can ignore historical lessons.

[hifiguy]

50. Obama is also a "beneficiary" of the example

that was made of John Kennedy. And he's smart enough to know it.

[guillaumeb]

52. An example of how far NOT to go?

An interesting idea about the limits of Presidential power?

[hifiguy]

57. JFK repeatedly crossed the CIA,

fired its psychopathic and murderous director, Allen Dulles, after Dulles lied him into signing off on the Bay of Pigs. Despite being fired, Dulles retained opertional control of large parts of the CIA until well into the presidency of LBJ.

The new book by David Talbot, "The Devil's Chessbord" documents this. While he doesn't actually accuse Dulles of being the man who gave final approval for the hit on JFK, which is all but certain, Talbot paints the line directly to Dulles.

Kennedy had more enemies of great power than perhaps any other president. He intended to directly engage Khrushchev and the USSR to greatly defuse the worst Cold War tensions, tolerate genuine independence for Third World countries once colonalized, and withdraw US military personnel from Vietnam after the 1964 election. He was also opening back channels to Fidel Castro in the months before he was killed. The MIC opposed every one of Kennedy's primary foreign policy goals.

No one in the world outside the Kennedy family was more saddened and shocked by the assassination than Khrushchev and Castro.

The lesson is simple - you cross the spooks and you die.

ETA

"Dulles’ career began in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, where he built a powerful client list. During wartime in Switzerland, he worked to protect his clients’ corporations and build his own organization. In direct opposition to Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, he sought a separate peace with the Germans to use them to fight communism. Talbot delivers a variety of thrilling stories about Dulles that boggle the mind, from skimming funds from the Marshall Plan to using Richard Nixon as his mouthpiece in Congress. It is really about the power elite, the corporate executives, government leaders, and top military officials who controlled the world. They protected corporate interests in Iran, Guatemala, and elsewhere, and they fomented revolutions, experimented in mind control, and assassinated those who got in their way."

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-talbot/the-devils-chessboard/

By almost all accounts, Dulles was an unsympathetic and sinister character. As a lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell in the 1930s, Dulles protected and promoted Nazi-controlled cartels. He used his influence in the Office of Strategic Services and the CIA to shield former Nazis from prosecution for war crimes in the ’40s and ’50s so that he could enlist them to fight communists.

By 1963, Talbot insists, a clear consensus had emerged among corporate leaders “and within America’s deep state” that Kennedy was a threat to national security and had to be removed. Dulles, they concluded, “was the only man with the stature, connections, and decisive will to make something of this enormity happen. … All that his establishment colleagues had to do was to look the other way — as they always did when Dulles took executive action.”

http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/The-Devil-s-Chessboard-by-David-Talbot-6574578.php

But we're just silly conspiracy theorists.

[littlewolf]

54. OMG I love this post - thank you

and the Russians were in Afghanistan before we were .. and it didn't end well
for them either … no one learns … ever.

[DocPain]

29. So, he lied at least 8 times.

[pnwmom]

59. He told the truth every one of those times. He was talking about his then CURRENT decision making,

in 2013 and 2014, not predicting the future.

[still_one]

80. You aren't going to win this discussion, people see only what they want.

Interestingly, Bernie Sanders Supports Obama in Keeping Troops In Afghanistan, and he wouldn't end the drone program.

Bernie has also spoken many times about the very real threat that ISIS poses, and fully supports the notion that they need to be stopped. However, in that regard he is more vague. He says the U.S. should be involved, but we should not lead the effort.

Now I realize that it is a rare occurrence for some on DU to automatically jump to conclusion on things, and it probably means very little that Kerry has been meeting with top diplomats from Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey regarding Syria, but it would be nice if we wait to see what the full consequences of this means.

The discussions regarding the budget agreement kind of reflects how some can jump to the wrong conclusion.

Interestingly, there had been some accusations that certain things weren't covered under the ACA a little while ago, which proved to be an incorrect assumption.

I have encountered discussions where some thought with almost certainty we were going to engage in a war with Iran over their nuclear development program. I imagine the nuclear deal that resulted was the furthest thing from their minds.

It wasn't that long ago that the chemical weapons were removed from Syria, and that also involved some intensive discussions.

Speculation is fine, but quite often incorrect. Otherwise, we would have Senator Warren, and Vice President Biden as potential candidates for the Democratic nomination

I will wait to see what the objective and plans are, before jumping to any conclusions via another Obama bashing thread

[valerief]

30. Pretty soon 100% of our discretionary tax dollars will be going to the military.

Cuz, you know, freedumb.

[guillaumeb]

31. When any country spends over a trillion dollars a year on its war machine,

when most candidates from both major parties are funded/controlled by Wall Street and the war industries,
what do people really expect?

The Vietnam War started in much the same way, with assurances by a Democratic President that troops were only working in an advisory capacity.

[raccoon]

42. Great post. nt

[KoKo]

64. ....!

[LittleBlue]

34. He lied. Who could have seen that coming?

Wish I could say I was happy his job will soon be over. But then we'll stupidly replace him with someone else who is exactly like him. Probably someone who will take wiretapping, secret courts, and prosecuting whistle-blower to a new level of depravity.

[pnwmom]

60. HE told the truth. He was talking in 2013 and 2014 about responding to events at that time.

He wasn't speculating about events and responses month and years into the future.

[morningfog]

77. Then he is an idiot. He should have known where his

where his strategy would lead. It was painfully obvious in 2013 and 2014.

[pnwmom]

79. No, the idiots are those who think that circumstances never change

and that what is true and appropriate in 2013 must be true and appropriate forever.

[morningfog]

86. What a load of shit. The fundamentals have not changed.

Obama never had a plan. He just follows the generals into endless war.

[KamaAina]

41. "What I tell you nine times is true."

[Octafish]

43. We have to stop Russia before we run out of terrorists.

Welfare for Wall Street via the MIC is Buy Partisan, doncha know.

[The2ndWheel]

44. We live in a complex reality

The weatherman can't tell you exactly what will happen, let alone any politician.

[Fumesucker]

53. And in go the Nobel Peace Commandos

[scscholar]

55. I don't remember him ever saying that

Have you checked the sources to make sure they're not right-wing garbage?

[morningfog]

76. You must not have been paying attention.

He said it and most of us thought it was stupid at the time. He was either being naive, in denial or lying.

[pnwmom]

58. And every single statement was true -- in 2013 and 2014, when he made them.

This is late 2015 and conditions are changing on a daily basis.

I don't know whether what he is doing now is the best thing or not. But I do know that we are not in the same place we were in a year or two ago, and he can only make his decision today based on conditions today.

[rusty fender]

66. Blah, blah, blah

Trying to protect the object of a cult of personality at all costs makes one sound like a

[pnwmom]

68. Attacking Democrats as a "cult of personality" on DU makes one sound

like a freeper.

[hifiguy]

70. So any disagreement with ANY Democratic officeholder

for ANY reason at all makes one a freeper.

Glad we got THAT cleared up.

I march in lockstep for no one.

[pnwmom]

71. Do you have a problem with basic logic?

Attacking a DUer as part of a "cult of personality" because s/he disagrees with an opinion that President Obama is a liar is NOT the logical equivalent of attacking someone for "any disagreement with ANY Democratic officeholder."

[hifiguy]

72. You do NOT want to take me on in a battle of logic.

Just take that as a given. And I am not going to engage this kind of rampant silliness.

[pnwmom]

73. LOL.

[rusty fender]

92. Fair enough...

but I think you'd claim that Obama has never lied about anything, ever.

As the gifted politician he is, he lies and tells the truth to justify his actions. That's what politicians do, but you're not getting anyone to believe you regarding his protestations about Syria.

[morningfog]

75. Meanwhile, back in reality, we knew where this was going.

Going back into Iraq and leaving open air strikes in Syria, we knew this would be the next step. Then, just as now, there is no clearly defined objective, no exit plan, no end point. This is open ended war which will be escalated by Obama and then escalated by the next war mongering president.

[JoePhilly]

93. The hair on fire club does not ...

... recognize the notion of responding to situations as they develop.

It's the same folks who have repeatedly predicted Obama was going to invade some ME country every couple months for years.

It has not happened. And they are pissed their predictions were wrong over and over.

So here once again, they'll lose their collective minds trying to declare they were right all of those other times.

Situations change, but their inability to predict what happens next continues.

[Jesus Malverde]

83. Putin shit in the punch bowl by showing the US campaign for the farce it was.

Playing footsies with jihadist never ends well. Now we need to try and get back and control the narrative.

[bigwillq]

85. A politician that lied?

I'm shocked.

[99Forever]

87. Spoiler alert: I've seen this movie before.

What comes next is the scenes of the captured American soldier being tortured and killed, posted online while the body is put on public display, followed by calls of outrage...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

90. "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?" - John Maynard Keynes.

[morningfog]

94. The information was clear when Obama stepped

back into Iraq. This was the warning that was given at the time. Don't give me that weak sauce bullshit.

[libodem]

91. I'm sure it's more complex

Than we can imagine.first of all you have Israel sitting over there with a bunch of paranoid delusions and then you have our CIA in on the ground fomenting a regime change, so who knows what secret double agent propping up of rebels or Al CIAda, of Al CIAda of the Northern Peninsula, because I'm sure if they wanted to be undetected , they would name themselves, that. Just like they named themselves ISIS or ISIL so they could operate, covertly. Pretty sure we have been arming and training militsnt groups over there to justify the fucking big black budget. Who effing knows????