The decision to deploy US troops to Syria
is seen in Washington as one of profound political consequence – both
for the credibility of Barack Obama’s presidency and possibly for new peace talks aimed at ending the five-year war – but yet of limited military significance.
Administration officials were left squirming on Friday to explain how sending special forces to work alongside Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State was compatible with Obama’s earlier promises not to “put boots on the ground” in Syria or “engage in combat operations” against Isis.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest claimed there was still a difference of “night and day” compared with the Bush administration’s invasions, but in the space of a few short weeks a central promise of Obama’s presidential campaign has been undermined: first by conceding that he will not meet his pledge of removing troops from Afghanistan before he leaves office and now by acknowledging a long-term ground presence is necessary not just in Iraq, but Syria too.
Earnest would not say whether the deployments were permanent or would be bolstered, insisting: “I don’t want to try to predict the future here.”
Yet arguably that was exactly what Obama claimed he could do when he ran for office promising to bring US troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the president first contemplated intervention in Syria two years ago, in an effort to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Obama went further still, making a clear-cut pledge not to escalate US involvement.
“Many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?” said Obama in an address to the nation in September 2013. “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.”
That mission against Assad was ultimately dropped in the face of opposition from Congress, and the White House claims critics are taking the “boots on the ground” quote out of context by using it now.
Administration officials were left squirming on Friday to explain how sending special forces to work alongside Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State was compatible with Obama’s earlier promises not to “put boots on the ground” in Syria or “engage in combat operations” against Isis.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest claimed there was still a difference of “night and day” compared with the Bush administration’s invasions, but in the space of a few short weeks a central promise of Obama’s presidential campaign has been undermined: first by conceding that he will not meet his pledge of removing troops from Afghanistan before he leaves office and now by acknowledging a long-term ground presence is necessary not just in Iraq, but Syria too.
Earnest would not say whether the deployments were permanent or would be bolstered, insisting: “I don’t want to try to predict the future here.”
Yet arguably that was exactly what Obama claimed he could do when he ran for office promising to bring US troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the president first contemplated intervention in Syria two years ago, in an effort to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons, Obama went further still, making a clear-cut pledge not to escalate US involvement.
“Many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war?” said Obama in an address to the nation in September 2013. “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.”
That mission against Assad was ultimately dropped in the face of opposition from Congress, and the White House claims critics are taking the “boots on the ground” quote out of context by using it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment