Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
KERRY SAID YESTERDAY THAT, IN THE FUTURE, THERE COULD BE A GROUD WAR WITH SYRIA--MEDIA MISSED IT
FROM Http://fortheleft.blogspot.com
KERRY IS SCARY BUT MEDIA DOESN'T REPORT WHY
By Keith Shirey
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Searching through the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the offerings of several nationally syndicated columnists, I cannot find adequate coverage of Secretary of State John Kerry's remarks to the Senate Foreign Relations committee on September 3, 2013. What one finds is an incomplete reporting of his statements that leaves out what is perhaps the most important part of this testimony. While there is an acknowledgement that Kerry made assertions that he had to "walk back," key aspects of his remarks are missing in the sources I checked. While it is true that many in the media, beyond the reports mentioned above, portrayed Kerry as fumbling and bumbling, they terribly missed the mark by negligent reporting.
To quickly recap, Kerry told the committee, initially, that he didn't want to take "boots on the ground" off the table as a military option in Syria if "the situation imploded." Then, realizing that he had made a mistake, he "walked back" the statement and said he wanted to "shut the door" on the boots on the ground issue. The media seems to have generally reported this (except for the PBS News Hour which was utterly hopeless in portraying an even semi-honest presentation of the hearings, let alone reflecting upon the Secretary of State's remarks).
But what was not reported in the media I checked is Kerry's final statement as to why he initially said that troops could be deployed to syria if the situation "imploded." The final statement was supposed to be a clarification of that assertion.
Kerry's clarification went this way: "What I was doing was hypothesizing about a potential -- it might occur at some point in time. But not in this authorization, in no way, be crystal clear. There is no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for American troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for [sic]."
So, in other words, Kerry is saying that, in terms of the specific authorization that Congress is now considering, it can include the provision that no American troops on the ground be allowed. But, we should inquire, what happens if the authorization passes the Congress and the strike against Syria fails to achieve Obama-Kerry's goals (whatever they are supposed to be)? Well, Kerry is strongly implying,"Uh, that's in the future, you know, uh, some point in time, uh, hypothetically, we might consider a ground war in Syria, to be crystal clear about this maybe at some point in the future (cough)."
But, attempts at humor aside, this is serious business. The key spokesperson for the Obama Administration, Secretary of Defense Kerry, confused and as inarticulate as he is, is not ruling out a future ground war in Syria. In view of the fact that the Administration has not clearly stated what the objective of a strike on Syria would be, the Administration could easily assert that the (unclear} objective of the strike was not met, that more strikes were needed and that, to the use the words of Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey, other "military options" would be put into force. (To achieve another glorious victory like Iraq?)
The policy of the Obama Administration is muddled and confused. The President talks about a "limited" and "proportional" strike against Syria. Yet, at the same time, he has compared Assad to Hitler. Well, if Assad is Hitler why would Obama spokespersons say that there is no intention of having the limited strike remove him from power? Didn't Obama, himself, in the recent past say that Assad had to go?
To provide some frame of reference as to where we are, let us remember that U.S. military adventures in the Middle East have ended up being murderous and ineffective. We've seen "mission creep"in Afghanistan, where Obama rolled over for the military and "surged," in the United States' longest war. That war was essentially fought for nothing. Recently, The Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff stated, that once militarily in involved in Syria, it would be very difficult to get out. Finally, the Obama Administration seems to have no idea what the "end game" in Syria is.
Given these realities, it is obviously imperative that extensive, accurate reporting , as well as critical discussion, of Administration spokesperson's statements be presented. This is particularly the case when it involves the Secretary of State.
For the media to exclude, and allowed to go unexamined, the statement of Kerry, that a future option, beyond current authorization, might involve a ground war in Syria shows a breathtaking incompetence.
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
