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

Tyler Durden's picture

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.

Make no mistake, these questions probably seem absurd to anyone in US intelligence and/or military circles. Obviously, there have been boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq for years and indeed, the public seems to have forgotten that just five months ago, US commandos executed a raid in Syria that purportedly killed Islamic State’s “gas minister” (and yes, that’s just as absurd as it sounds).

Additionally, Washington has made no secret of the now defunct “train and equip” program for Syrian rebels - clearly, the American public hadn’t thought very hard about who was doing the on-the-ground “training.”

Finally, there’s no telling how many CIA operatives and black ops have been running around in Syria assissisting Saudi Arabia and Qatar’s proxy armies from the very beginning. 

Still, the Obama administration has gone out of its way in the past to dismiss the idea of American boots on the ground in Syria and because we’re happy to see that the mainstream media has at least partially woken up to this ridiculous charade, we present 16 instances of Obama swearing there will be no boots on the ground, courtesy of USA Today:

*  *  * 

Remarks 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."

Interview with the PBS Newshour, Sept. 9, 2013

"Tomorrow I'll speak to the American people. I'll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We're not talking about — not boots on the ground. We're not talking about sustained airstrikes. We're talking about a very specific set of strikes to degrade his chemical weapons capabilities in terms of delivery."

Interview with CBS Evening News, Sept. 9, 2013

"What I'm going to try to propose is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground; nothing like that. This isn't like Iraq. It's not like Afghanistan. It's not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important."

Address to the Nation, Sept. 10, 2013

"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities."

Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014

"We are doing everything we can to see how we can do that and how we can resource it. But I've looked at a whole lot of game plans, a whole lot of war plans, a whole bunch of scenarios, and nobody has been able to persuade me that us taking large-scale military action even absent boots on the ground, would actually solve the problem."

News conference in Newport, Wales, 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. I don't think that's necessary for us to accomplish our goal. We are going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push back against ISIL."

Interview with Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2014

"(You) cannot, over the long term or even the medium term, deal with this problem by having the United States serially occupy various countries all around the Middle East. We don't have the resources. It puts enormous strains on our military. And at some point, we leave. And then things blow up again. So we've got to have a more sustainable strategy, which means the boots on the ground have to be Iraqi. And and in Syria, the boots on the ground have to be Syrian. ... I will reserve the right to always protect the American people and go after folks who are trying to hurt us wherever they are. But in terms of controlling territory, we're going to have to develop a moderate Sunni opposition that can control territory and that we can work with. The notion that the United States should be putting boots on the ground, I think would be a profound mistake. And I want to be very clear and very explicit about that."

Address to the Nation on Syria, 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. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground."

News conference in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014

"Yes, there are always circumstances in which the United States might need to deploy U.S. ground troops. If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it. So the question just ends up being, what are those circumstances? I'm not going speculate on those. Right now we're moving forward in conjunction with outstanding allies like Australia in training Iraqi security forces to do their job on the ground."

Remarks at the White House, Feb. 11, 2015

"The resolution we've submitted today does not call for the deployment of U.S. ground combat forces to Iraq or Syria. It is not the authorization of another ground war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. ... As I've said before, I'm convinced that the United States should not get dragged back into another prolonged ground war in the Middle East. That's not in our national security interest, and it's not necessary for us to defeat ISIL. Local forces on the ground who know their countries best are best positioned to take the ground fight to ISIL, and that's what they're doing."

Remarks at the Pentagon, July 6, 2015

"There are no current plans to do so. That's not something that we currently discussed. I've always said that I'm going to do what's necessary to protect the homeland. One of the principles that we all agree on, though, and I pressed folks pretty hard because in these conversations with my military advisers I want to make sure I'm getting blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in every one of the conversations that we've had, the strong consensus is that in order for us to succeed long-term in this fight against ISIL, we have to develop local security forces that can sustain progress. It is not enough for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set back organizations like ISIL, but to then, as soon as we leave, see that void filled once again with extremists."

*  *  *

Summing it all up in one hilarious picture of Ash Carter listening to Obama tell reporters at The Pentagon that their will be no boots on the ground in Syria...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
nevertheless's picture

When the Jews say jump, US politicians ask how high?

Looney's picture

Here are some interesting stats:

We used to fly 6-10 sorties a day in Syria prior to the Russian involvement.

After that, we had flown 1-2 times a day.

Since October 23, right after the US and Russia signed the “Deconfliction Memorandum” to avoid clashes in Syria’s skies, we’ve flown ZERO times in Syria.

The Zero Sorties could mean two things:

  1. Erdogan doesn’t want any flights to take place from Incirlik before the elections, or…

  2. The Deconfliction Memorandum simply says: “No flights are allowed over Syria, unless authorized by the Syrian government or the UN Security Council”.

Wouldn’t y’all want to take a peek at the Memorandum?  ;-)

Looney

lakecity55's picture

Haha, or, the Russians have an S300/400 in operation.

lakecity55's picture

Thanks, HH, in his own lying words.

"No, mom, I do not have a dick in my mouth. I have a sore throat."

The Russo-Aeorospace forces would be negligent if they did NOT have an SXXX system in operation. If it is 100% under Russian control, it does not violate any agreement they may have had with the Zionist government.

tonyw's picture

Look, you are all being way to harsh, things change, that was then this is now, enough already  ......  do you think that will cut it?

Nope neither do I :-)

You know a politician is lying when you see them speaking, one lie after another, on and on.

There is no need for America to be involved in Syria at all, no boots, no drones, no nothing, just stay away, simples.

y3maxx's picture

Who gains the most from downing the russian civilian plane?

y3maxx's picture

 Who gains themost from downing russian civilian plane?

highandwired's picture

Putin knows EVERYTHING

Tyler Durden: ISIS releases Video of Russian Airplane Explosion and Claims Responsibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d-xbnuvr7c

y3maxx's picture

Imo...Israel gains the most by downing a russian civilian jet......Will bring USSA to fight Hezbolla who are syrian and russian allies.

aint no fortunate son's picture

Think Vietnam. It always starts with a few "military advisors."

CheapBastard's picture

We now know who chopped down the cherry tree.

Theosebes Goodfellow's picture

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

Big fuckin' deal. Find me a Congress who has the balls to impeach him. Go on, find me one.

turtle's picture

Would be nice to have these linked up on utube video.

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) highandwired Nov 1, 2015 10:50 AM

Putin has to be respected, most with the money he has would just float away and not fight.

God Bless V. Putin

Chia-Pet's picture

The Russians. Continues to legitimize their fight in the eyes of the world... or at least China and Iran.

ebworthen's picture

"Hope and Change."

"Affordable Healthcare."

"Close Guantanimo Bay."

"Get us out of Afghanistan."

"No boots on the ground in Syria."

Etc., etc., etc...

StychoKiller's picture

Why stop when yer on a role?

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

"Deficits are irrelevant*" - Dick Cheney

* As long as the Dollar is King. You're simply exporting inflation to other countries.

p.s. The faster and higher the Debt goes, the more likely is a Reset. Unless the "Friends of Fed" do the same in lockstep. In which case everyone else is left holding the bag -- until they have the balls to leave the USD and the BIS altogether.

ZD1's picture

 “Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

— Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech to Senate, March 16, 2006

 

The U.S. debt ceiling has risen five times under the Obama regime.

Since being elected president, the Obama administration holds the record for the top six annual budget deficits all accumulated in its first six years, with more than $1 Trillion deficits in each of its first four years alone.

Obama’s deficits in 6 years are more than all prior US Presidents combined.
Vincent.Vega's picture

> We used to fly 6-10 sorties a day in Syria prior to the Russian involvement.

> After that, we had flown 1-2 times a day.

The States (read, the Jewish planners) are failing and simply switched from the original tactics of bombing Syrian forces, to Plan B, i.e. to destroying Syrian infrastructure.

claytonmoore50's picture

"OIL SECURITY"

Energy security for the Euro zone.

The civil war in Syria was started by U.S. and EU operatives to get Assad out of the way so the pipe line from Saudi Arabia and Qatar could be built into EU.

The Russians dont want that (will lose market share), and they would lose their naval base in Syria.


Alok's picture

here's the reason: 

U.S. Stopped Syria Air Strikes While Nusra And IS Prepared Attack On Government Supply Route

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/10/us-stopped-syria-air-strikes-while-...

 

 

FIAT CON's picture

Perhaps a Syrian no fly zone? The USSA may have agreed to but "hey don't tell  anyone  we do not want to look like we bowed down to your requests"

lakecity55's picture

The words "promise" and "Bath House" are mutually exclusive.

Johnny Horscaulk's picture
Johnny Horscaulk (not verified) nevertheless Nov 1, 2015 9:47 AM

you are plainly, empirically, absolutely correct.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/commentary-says-amount-of-us-political-mon...

But one isn't supposed to *say* it.

Which some have argued is a feature of Jewish power and privilege - to not have that power and privilege discussed via "the smear."

but the statement, while a little inelegant, is akin to 2+2 = 4.

But we should tie it to the broader oligarchical collectivism under which we live.

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/04/16/new-report-from-princeton-and-no...

That is - it's the very wealthy/elite that tell the US government to jump. And around half of them are Jews, although Jews are under 3% of the population.

Junk away - but trying to be fair AND honest about it. Criticism {sensible} welcome.

You don't need to deal in conspiracy theory or "canards" - following the $$$ does nicely.

And yes, 'Zionists' have been pining to destroy Syria for quite some time.

>>>>>>>>>>

"The War Powers Resolution, generally known as the War Powers Act, was passed by Congress over President Nixon’s veto to increase congressional control over the executive branch in foreign policy matters, specifically in regard to military actions short of formally declared war. Its central provision prohibited the President from engaging in military actions for more than sixty days, unless Congress voted approval.

The key Section 1541(c) reads:

(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

The proposed authorization approval in both bodies of Congress on extending permission for unwarranted aggression against Syria promises to be the most significant vote on foreign policy in the last half century. How many false flag cons can a war weary public endure from the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists? The answer becomes clear, every measure of pain and suffering that the fifth column Zionists can extract. "

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/syria-another-zionist-war-for-suckers-vi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Usurious's picture

 

 

+1000000000000000000000000000000~

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) Johnny Horscaulk Nov 1, 2015 10:58 AM

truth is there are way more jews than reported, crypto jews.

Vincent.Vega's picture

Exactly, bro, there are _at least_ around 2 billion jews (on this planet).

claytonmoore50's picture

You guys are starting to sound a lot like Nazis

Johnny Horscaulk's picture
Johnny Horscaulk (not verified) Johnny Horscaulk Nov 1, 2015 11:32 AM

As usual, not one person giving a reddie can muster anything resembling an argument.

:0}

QED.

facts are stubborn things, eh, boys?

lakecity55's picture

Or, "You want fries with that?"

ThirteenthFloor's picture

POTUS says whatever the CFR tells him to, then heads to the golf course, without a second thought. Probably not capable of a second thought, one tops his brain capacity.

L Bean's picture

I'm pretty sure ALL of his time is consumed with rehearsals for his many PR stunts. His singing of "Amazing Grace", his gratuitous b-ball crap to "fit in" w inner city kids, etc etc. 

He's probably studying on how to do an effective military salute, as we speak, so he'll have a distracting schtick when he tells the troops that they're all about to head to Syria and be killed by the Russians.

"Atten' HUT!"

(wow that looks very Ancient-Egyptian) 

drendebe10's picture

The pathological lying fudgepacker needs its skin sandpaper off, buried in salt then thrown out in the middle of an Iranian desert with a can of Pennzoil.

Vincent.Vega's picture

> When the Jews say jump, US politicians ask how high?

Most Americohen politicians are Jews anyway, it's just that goyim are busy consuming alcohol and have no time for anything else, just take a look at the depiction of Torah/Hebrew on Yale's shield:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Yale_University_Shie...

Israel is just a US military base in the Middle East, but the real Zion is _Amerika_.

 

claytonmoore50's picture

!?

There are no U.S. military bases in Israel

Chia-Pet's picture

Correction: US politicians ask how high ON THE WAY UP!

Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) nevertheless Nov 1, 2015 10:52 AM

Exposed for all to see, even the brainwashed.

Who controls your mind.

Red=Jews

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IXXpzPVVLKY/UiRjKoOknQI/AAAAAAAAAdo/k_MogA4ZIJ...

BullyBearish's picture

The "defense" department has sunk to using our troops as human shields against Russian bombers...sad

claytonmoore50's picture

"When the Jews say jump, US politicians ask how high?"

It's really the Saudis and Qatar this time (with the EU)...

Gotta keep them happy so the PetroDollar stays the standard for reserve currency

remain calm's picture

So he is a fucking liar, tell us something we don't know.

Eyeroller's picture

He can lie as much as he wants.  MSM will give him cover. 

Urban Redneck's picture

What do you expect from the freshman bench warmer who couldn't even make the JV foreign policy team?

rejected's picture

Well that seems what ameriKan's like,,, after all they voted him in....... twice.