Kerry Wavers, But Eventually Rules Out ‘Boots On The Ground’ In Syria

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/03/2566711/kerry-troops-syria/

Kerry Wavers, But Eventually Rules Out ‘Boots On The Ground’ In Syria

By Ben Armbruster on September 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm



Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday suggested that the Obama administration would not rule out the possibility that American troops would have to used as a consequence of any potential congressionally authorized military action against Syrian government targets in response to President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged chemical weapons use late last month. But Kerry clarified that the administration would welcome a provision prohibiting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria as part of a war authorization resolution.

During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ, the committee’s chairman, asked Kerry if “a prohibition for having American boots on the ground is that something that the administration would accept as part of a resolution.”

“It would be preferable not to, not because there’s any intention or any desire whatsoever to put boots on the ground,” Kerry replied. But he laid out a scenario in which U.S. troops might need to intervene inside Syria:

KERRY: I think the president will give you every assurance in the world as am I, as is the Secretary of Defense and the chairman, but in the event Syria imploded, for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interests of our allies and all of us, the British, the French and others, to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements, I don’t want to take off the table, an option, that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.

In making the case for military action in Syria, Obama administration officials have said it does not have any plans to introduce American troops into the conflict. President Obama said as much in his speech on Syria this Saturday.

snip//

“The bottom line is that the president has no intention, we do not want to put American troops on the ground to be involved in the fighting of this civil war,” Kerry said, later clarifying further that “{t}here is no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity” for U.S. troops in Syria.

[woo me with science]

1. ...that they can always change later.

He's a liar.

[babylonsister]

6. So you think Kerry is lying-why?

Because he's a warmonger? I don't think so.

[ProSense]

7. Apparently, being honest is the same as lying. n/t

[woo me with science]

14. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3589672

[babylonsister]

15. You're kicking your own thread?

Bhahaha! And here I thought that was a no-no on here.

You know, I obviously have a lot more respect for Kerry than you do. I also think he has more access to a lot more info than you or I do.

So you go on dissing him and I will go on defending him. I think he deserves that, even if you/I/we don't like what he's saying.

And PS, you're reminding me of the swift boaters; now that's sad.

[politicasista]

2. Kinda nervous about all this

and he is taking heat for that from the right, left and center. Doesn't sound good.

[karynnj]

4. However, if anything it is just being too honest

Do you seriously think that under the nightmare scenario he laid out, the US and other countries would NOT do everything they can to prevent it? At that point, you ARE speaking national security and Obama would act immediately without permission.

Note - this scenario is NOT limited to if we act.

[politicasista]

8. I don't know

a lot about the situation. Just that people here (not surprising) but people that support Obama feel like the "boots on the ground" comment is going to need lots and lots of clarification, especially with the stupid and uninformed, and the media playing gotcha with words.

[karynnj]

9. That I agree with - even though he quickly qualified it

[politicasista]

10. He did

haven't watched much MSM, cause they have gone bananas, but really hope that SOS Kerry is taking care of himself.

Also, nice to see Momma T supporting him. Hope she is hanging in there.

[karynnj]

12. It was fantastic that Teresa was there

Most obviously because it means she is well enough to be there. I can imagine that this entire situation has taken a huge toll on the entire Obama team - and especially Kerry. No one worked harder to avoid being in this situation - with the diplomacy that he and Teresa did in 2009 and his immediate attempt to set up Geneva 2 with Lavrov. (It didn't help to have the unneeded Snowden nonsense - though this was always a long shot.) In addition, he clearly has been the point man on this - out speaking FAR more often than anyone else. (In a media that has lost interest in Obama and never liked Kerry looking to find any point to discredit him. ) However, here the people who count the most are those with seats in Congress.

[politicasista]

13. You are right

Went back and cleaned up the comment because didn't want to feed the trolls.

Yep. Congress and world leaders matter now. It has taken a toll on Obama, on his hair and sleep (and everyone).

And 2013--the year where the US media and liberal blogs alike jumped the shark.


Don't blame him (and Momma T) for trying diplomacy first and trying to avoid conflict. It's unfortunate that it had to get to this point where there aren't many options left. Trying to keep hope that something happens where we didn't have to strike. Hope this crisis will be over, but we shall see.

[karynnj]

17. Agree with you on hoping something allows this not to happen

It seems unlikely as Russia is backing Assad to the hilt. If they were unhappy about the CW, they (not us) have the leverage to push them to give up their CW to the UN.

This would be a plus on so many levels - even if it would be a victory for Russia

- There would be fewer CW (or none in the best case)
- There would then be no need to strike - as the goal was peacefully achieved.

(I had no problem with your post as written - this actually is a case where Kerry likely spoke before thinking out the consequences. I am surprised they did not have a prepared answer on this as it was a likely issue. I think JK got it right in the correction - that it was not what they intended to do, However, Kerry has given 2 detailed long speeches laying this out, 5 Sunday showes - including CNNs Gloria Borger and Fox - both not friendly, and several conference calls where he was given the lead. No one could be perfect. )

[wandy]

3. Why is it that I don't believe him.....

Sure theirs profit in shooting off a few cruse missiles.
Even more profit in a no fly zone.

Ahhhhhhh, but boots on the ground.
Thats the mother load. Happy days are here again!

Do you know why this is going to get ugly?
Because the M.I.C wants it to get ugly.

[Jefferson23]

5. It would be preferable not to have the constraint not because there’s any intention or any desire

whatsoever to put boots on the ground. Then because why?

[Cha]

11. thanks babylonsistah.

[mazzarro]

16. What If Turkey Puts Troops in Syria And Asks NATO For Support?

If Turkey is nudged to put soldiers on the ground in Syria and then make a request to NATO for support on the ground? Will the US consider this as a valid excuse to put boots on the ground in Syria?

[NYC_SKP]

18. K/R. (nt)

[Crimson76]

19. 100,000 people have been killed in the 2 1/2 years since this war startes

Can anyone tell me why this is coming up now? And please spare me the chemical weapons excuse.