Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy said Wednesday that she does not advocate sending U.S. ground troops to Syria to fight President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
On Monday, Defense One, the national security and defense news outlet of Atlantic Media, reported that Flournoy had “called for ‘limited military coercion’ to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a ‘no bombing’ zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels.”
Reporter Patrick Tucker interpreted those comments, which Flournoy made at a Center for New American Security conference, to mean that she “said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.”
That report was widely cited elsewhere, including in a post by The Intercept’s co-founding editor Glenn Greenwald.
After publication, Flournoy wrote a letter to the editor of Defense One denying that she advocates “putting U.S. combat troops on the ground to take territory from Assad’s forces or remove Assad from power.”
Tucker told The Intercept that Defense One did not issue a correction because they felt they accurately reported Flournoy’s policy position. “Strike weapons at standoff distance is troops,” said Tucker. “Those are military personnel. That is U.S. military power — at war with the Assad regime. There is just no way around it.”
He added, “We took a very inclusive use of the word ‘troops,’ one that matched the literal definition of ‘troops,’ but nowhere do we ever suggest or say ‘ground troops.'”
Flournoy did not deny the entire report that she favors increased U.S. intervention; for instance, she acknowledged her support for U.S. “strikes using standoff weapons — to retaliate against Syrian military targets” to enforce the no-bomb zone.
She wrote that she believes this would create “more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement.”
The potential Pentagon chief also wrote that she wants to increase “U.S. military support to moderate Syrian opposition groups fighting ISIS and the Assad regime.”
In the comments that Defense One initially quoted, Flournoy distinguished her proposed policy from a no-fly zone — a policy Clinton endorsed in December — explaining that “you’re not having aircraft drill holes in the sky. You’re not having to take out the entire civilian air defense system.” In 2015, Flournoy called the military dimensions of Obama’s strategy in Syria “under-resourced, while many of the non-military lines of operation remain underdeveloped.”
Flournoy’s stated foreign policy position would still increase U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war beyond what President Obama and top military officials have been willing to commit.
When asked in October 2015 if the U.S. was going to allow Russian forces to continue to bomb U.S.-supported moderate opposition forces, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest responded, “The president has made quite clear that Syria is not going to turn into a proxy war between Russia and the United States. That certainly would not be consistent with our interests.”
Flournoy’s reiterated willingness to engage directly with Syrian and proxy forces, coupled with Donald Trump’s commitment to send U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS, signals almost-inevitable military escalation in the Syrian conflict once Obama leaves office.
Indeed it does. But no worries; this was all just a big misunderstanding, and Flournoy will hasten to re-clarify her comments after our November elections.
In 2015, Flournoy called the military dimensions of Obama’s strategy in Syria “under-resourced, while many of the non-military lines of operation remain underdeveloped.”
Distinctly reminiscent of Larry Summers’ “under-polluted Africa”, and the ambient under-exploitation of resources suffered by so many nations, desperately awaiting the creative spark of empire. Another instance of the passing of a beautiful linguistic and conceptual baton, from regime to regime.
The main Q is “why the hell are we trying to topple Assad in the first place?”
Maybe so Israel can finally annex the Golan Heights by default and expand into Syria…………..????
Please keep up this fantastic reporting of their true intentions so that when they try and spin their actions we may scream “WE TOLD YOU SO!”
Be relentless! !
These folks are pros when it comes to moving the goalposts semantically. They don’t have the nerve to come right out and say exactly what they wish to do, so they camouflage it with semantics.
The wealth of a hard working people being thrown away by the oligarch’s and the military who have taken control of the civilian government. America has become a ‘war machine’ that fights for more wealth for its owners, and at the same time threatens the citizens it once protected with destruction if they do not comply with their heinous leaders and their heinous ways! Pretty bad stuff. In the movies the ‘Men in Black’ work to save the world from the bad guys and gals, but in real life the ‘Men in Black’ are the worst enemy of the people to ever walk the planet. They create social war!
“Standoff weapons”
“Moderate rebels”
Both of these descriptions are so phony that they sound
like something from a cartoon show.
No doubt the faking U$A Wiley Coyote Napoleon will have
difficulties when the weapons refuse to participate because
their “standoff”-ishness will not allow them to engage and the
“moderate”d rebels will realize that being in two places at once
leaves them nowhere at all to retreat and charge simultaneously
because they are on whichever side of an ever-changing
amorphousness which only has as much substance as the
twisted imaginings of a lusty gutted domination and the
peace of continuous warmongering economics.
Of course, this will all be blamed on Putin the roadrunner Napoleon
when the next escalation scheme is hatched out of the
pentagonal egg of the “free” markets.
Let us all be serious. The Trump and Clinton UN-Reality Show
is starting a new season on TV!! God save the queen!!
Yes, the War departments were given $500Million to vet and train “moderate” opposition forces. Only a couple of months ago the program was cancelled, because even they recognized that it was a dismal failure. Now your next SECDEF is talking about bombing to support them.
Perhaps in her own perverse way she is talking about disengagement. If we institute a no fly zone and bomb them or use cruise missiles or artillery (collectively, stand off weapons) to support the moderate opposition, but only them, then we won’t be enforcing much of a no fly zone, and won’t be launching too many weapons, will we? But I fear that AQ will be deemed moderate, which indeed they are in comparison with ISIL.
Along those lines, a potential solution to the dilemma of no perceivable credible moderate rebel force is a rebranding effort. We can for instance rename AQ in recognition of their CIA-backed roots: Mujahideen. Then all the warmongers in Congress can enthusiastically support them, along with the other AQ-linked rebels, who along with us are fighting for the freedom of the Syrian people.
(Apologies to Benito.)
“Standoff weapons”
“Moderate rebels”
Along with such similar notions as “friendly dictators”, “limited Armageddon”, and, one might add, “controlled descent into madness”…
Shades of Python’s “Crunchy Frog” sketch, “dew-picked and lightly killed…”
reuters*dot*com/article/idUSBRE92D0PG20130314
The Iraq war cost the US taxpayer $2 trillion and accomplished 2 things:
1. It created ISIS
2. It ruined a country and severely affected millions of lives
Clinton is on a slippery slope descending the US into another long and protracted war.
If this is the measure of military success, then we should learn to live with failure.
Someone should ask Clinton how a Syrian war differs in outcomes to the Iraq war.
Answer: It Doesn’t.
The US definition of military success was forged by means of a bipartisan effort in the early 1970s, in Vietnam. We won that war, don’t you know? (But forgot to tell the Vietnamese.) The attitude epitomizes the first principle of US politics, which is to never admit mistakes, never admit fallibility, and never look outside the system for information.
Militarily, it is interesting to contrast the post-Vietnam US military with the post-WW1 German military. Since we “won” Vietnam, we saw no reason to change, which is why we use the same tactics, and have the same reliance on ultra high tech (and expensive) weapons as we did then. The Germans, on the other hand, admitted having lost, and sought to remedy their mistakes. The result was Blitzkrieg, accomplishing in a few weeks in the spring of 1940 what they had been unable to do earlier in four years.
Just to give an example from Iraq and Afghanistan. Our heavy, wide wheeled vehicles are mostly confined to traveling over roads, and so since just after the fall of Saddam we’ve been plagued by attacks on those vehicles, first by RPGs then by roadside bombs (IEDs). The solution was to spend more money, building bigger vehicles (MRAPs) which despite their name are not very Mine Resistant, as they can be effectively countered by simply adding a little more explosive to the IEDs, and in addition further restrict our mobility. Had we chosen instead to deploy troops on motorcycles we would have lessened the casualty rate of IEDs, made their use much less attractive, increased mobility and cut cost. (For the price of one entry level MRAP, one can purchase around 50 high end off road bikes; 50 soldiers given speed and mobility instead of a dozen, confined to a crawling deathtrap). But our military, and our Congress, cannot think outside the box. Their only candidate solutions are ones that cost more money, and (especially) enrich certain constituents.
On the slippery slope? Clinton is already deep inside the event horizon, and hell bent on dragging us with her.
“standoff weapons” are missiles. are they going to fire themselves? and that’s what she’s saying without hearing how vile she sounds: “how dare you suggest i’d start a war and then actually put ANY skin in the game! that’s what turkey and the gcc pay isis to do in any case.” the other parts of course being a no-fly zone hovering over whichever takfiri twats the state department, cia and pentagon declare “moderate” that week.
it’s like all the clintonites had something break in their brains and are all living out “groundhog day” on a random day before russia moved in. probably when lavrov outclassed kerry and stopped him from using a whole lotta standoff machinery a while back. someone needs to remove their installation disks and wipe them off or something.
I don’t understand this reasoning. AFAIK, traditionally many of the least crazy people in Syria were pressed up against the Turkish border in a little zone, so if Turkey would allow the U.S. to do so, troops could set up in Turkey and shoot rockets over the border without ever touching a toe inside the line. Not that I really believe that wouldn’t happen… but there are limited circumstances, against such monstrous forces, where it wouldn’t seem like any great crime for them to push the distinction a little.
Good job Travis, this is a good comprehensive follow-up article.
I hope president Assad will pay for all of his crimes against his own people that wanted him to get out of office because they want freedom. I hope dictator bashar Assad will die for all the evil things he has done. He used his soilders to rape an kill his people And tortur them in there jails. President Assad u need to get out of office and go die and rot for all the terrible evil things u have done including using chemical weapons on your own people that only wanted freedom that’s not much to ask for from your people!” I hate u president bashar Assad, your evil and twisted in the head all u care about is being the dictator of your country until u die.” U don’t care about none of your people u evil Assad.” I think u need some real mental help so get the hell out of office and stop killing an raping people now!” All u care about Assad is u being in power not what your people wished for was there freedom.”
i’m not saying that comment was written by a 14 year old israeli, but i’m not saying that comment wasn’t written by a 14 year old israeli either.
Not saying is was or wasn’t a 14 year old. Defiantly saying it did not take the pair to write something understandable.
You’ve got it covered, then.
DEAR RIO
you sound like a virtual idiot,,,,,,with one missed factor,,,,,Syria minus Assad will be like Iraq minus Saddam H. a mega catastrophe,,,,,,be careful of what you wish for
Flournoy’s response is the type of content-free response that is generated by a public relations consulting firm.
First she asserts that she does not want to do “send troops”, then she follows by saying she wants to do it but does not want to use the standard definition for what it is that she wants to do.
Instead of calling it “remove Assad from power”, she likes to say that it is to “set more favorable conditions on the ground for a negotiated political settlement”. Never mind that the settlement she is talking about is the removal of Assad!
All these propagandists and obfuscators seem to be well versed in Goebbles’ writings!