Support NeoGAF

[MIMIC]

Was watching the the Commander-in-Chief Forum on MSNBC last night and one thing that caught my attention was Clinton's vow to keep American troops off the ground on both Syria & Iraq. Sounded like a good promise, considering how big of a failure Operation Iraqi Freedom was. But is Hillary -- again -- just saying what people want to hear?

I was watching the news and they said that Hillary's description of the current situation isn't entirely accurate. And considering how Hillary is on record as favoring the more aggressive foreign policy options even when Obama is against it (and the fact that there are already technically ground troops there), I just have to ask myself whether this is just more lip-service for votes.

2 big problems with Hillary Clinton’s no-ground-troops pledge

Iraq has long been an uncomfortable subject for Hillary Clinton. Her vote to authorize the war alienated progressives and arguably cost her the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. And now it's even being used against her by Donald Trump (who falsely claims to have opposed the war).

So Clinton took a bold step Wednesday night when it comes to Iraq and neighboring Syria, where the battle against the Islamic State has been raging for 13 years.

"They are not going to get ground troops," she said at a prime-time NBC forum. "We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops."

She said it four times. Clearly, this was a message she intended to deliver.

She elaborated in a news conference Thursday morning.

The first big problem with this premise is the fact that there are already arguably ground troops in Iraq and Syria. The second is that in recent months, generals have asked for even more. In other words: The potential need for a ramped-up effort is already evident, but Clinton is completely foreclosing that option in a way that doesn't allow for changing circumstances.

At the core of Clinton's promise is the definition of "ground troops." The Obama administration itself has notably changed its own verbiage when referring to troops serving in Iraq and Syria. Obama said repeatedly in 2013 that there would be no "boots on the ground" in Syria.

"I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria," he said in a televised address in September 2013.

By 2014, though, the administration slightly altered its promise, pledging that there would be no combat troops on the ground. And then the administration in 2015 announced a small number of special forces would indeed be put on the ground there.

[...]

In sum: The only expectation is the unexpected — especially when it comes to the Middle East and the Islamic State. Taking options off the table, as Obama has done and now Clinton is doing, is fraught both militarily and politically.

The Washington Post

And if you ask NPR, they said that it's a promise that she CAN'T keep:

1. Clinton And Troops On The Ground

The Claim

"We're not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again."

The Question

Clinton vowed on Wednesday that the U.S. would never make another deployment of troops to Iraq, or send a force to Syria, as part of her plan to defeat the Islamic State.

Is that a promise she could keep as president?

The Short Answer

No.

 

[Bowdz]

She mentioned during the press conference this morning that she supports special operation forces and handler/trainers. Her comments are purely pertaining to a large scale ground troop deployment ala Iraq 2003 and that is absolutely a promise she can keep.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Eh context is 100k+ troops like Iraq. I think the expectation of special ops, trainers, and forward air controllers is a given.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Is this one of those "I hate the way that bitch eats crackers" threads?

 

[Tain]

Is this one of those "I hate the way that bitch eats crackers" threads?

if you want to equate military power and crackers i guess

 

[whyamihere]

She mentioned during the press conference this morning that she supports special operation forces and handler/trainers. Her comments are purely pertaining to a large scale ground troop deployment ala Iraq 2003 and that is absolutely a promise she can keep.

Exactly.

 

[Kite]

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

 

[whyamihere]

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

Welcome to the club!

 

[johnsmith]

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

He's just asking questions!

 

[pigeon]

NPR's article is pretty clear in the part you didn't quote -- the official definition of "ground troops" doesn't include special ops or support teams. You might disagree with that definition, I guess, but it is probably the definition Hillary is using.

I think Hillary can probably commit to not sending ground troops, as officially defined, to Syria. She seems pretty clearly anti-invasion.

I'm pretty uncertain on the question of whether we should be sending any personnel at all to Syria, which seems to be your question. As always, it's a difficult situation without obvious right answers.

 

[Nafai1123]

She mentioned during the press conference this morning that she supports special operation forces and handler/trainers. Her comments are purely pertaining to a large scale ground troop deployment ala Iraq 2003 and that is absolutely a promise she can keep.

That's how I interpreted her comments too, but this is a pretty clear case as to why she is so tepid in her statements day to day and why she needs to parse her words so carefully. Any misstep or misinterpretation and she get's drilled.

Meanwhile Trump can double down on a tweet he made about rape in the military and the media rationalize and downplay the severity and stupidity of his comments. He can say our generals are "reduced to rubble" and his surrogates say "well, what he meant was actually X, which is a valid criticism."

 

[Quixzlizx]

if you want to equate military power and crackers i guess

Except the OP probably agrees with Hillary's position, and is just implying she's a liar yet again.

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

Team Alucard was juniored, so someone needs to take up the slack.

 

[djplaeskool]

I'm pretty certain there's wide agreement that we should NOT engage in a massive deployment into Syria.

 

[Condom]

She needs them for Iran

 

[Nivash]

It's worth pointing out that this technically applies to any candidate making this claim, it's not about Hillary per se. It's still a stupid statement, though, precisely because of what the article points out - circumstances can change. If a scenario where a ground effort might actually be needed emerges, she'll either look like a hypocrite or be forced to stick with her promise against better judgement.

It would have been easy to state that troops are neither needed nor wanted as things stand now, but that would obviously invite the accusation that she's using political speak to hide intentions of a future deployment. So she decided to use an absolutist statement instead. From a political standpoint it's probably the right choice, to be honest. It makes it much more convoluted and less effective to attack her on without the attacker coming off as jingoistic themselves.

 

[pigeon]

She needs them for Iran

Please don't try to inflict Corbynism on America the way you did on your own country.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

No troops on the ground = no massive invasion force to stabilize "ENTER COUNTRY"

Yes, we have special operations in many countries where "we don't have troops on the ground". Clearly the connotation with "no troops on the ground" is Iraq 2.0

But it's just MIMIC asking the tough questions!

 

[jack_package_200]

No troops on the ground = no massive invasion force to stabilize "ENTER COUNTRY"

Yes, we have special operations in many countries where "we don't have troops on the ground". Clearly the connotation with "no troops on the ground" is Iraq 2.0

All of this

Please don't try to inflict Corbynism on America the way you did on your own country.

Last thing this country needs is Jeremy Corbyn bullshit.

 

[User 463088]

I think the last thing any country needs is Jeremy Corbyn.

But, it was obvious what she meant. And, I would not support sending ground troops into Syria at all. I'm a lot more hawkish than most of you, but that's a no-go for me.

 

[mrhyderager]

Meanwhile Trump can double down on a tweet he made about rape in the military and the media rationalize and downplay the severity and stupidity of his comments. He can say our generals are "reduced to rubble" and his surrogates say "well, what he meant was actually X, which is a valid criticism."

Dude, you've got to get over that. That's politics, and the same is going to happen in Hillary's favor too. The general public by and large does not let Trump get away with saying the stupid shit he does. He gets called out all the time.

The thing here is, people know Trump says stupid shit. It's the status quo. People also know Hillary likes to lie when it's convenient (not that Trump doesn't lie too). So when both of them say anything, it's going to be met with heavy skepticism. I think the average American assumes "no boots on the ground" means literally 0 people. If that's not what she means then she needs to be clear about that.

 

[pigeon]

Dude, you've got to get over that. That's politics, and the same is going to happen in Hillary's favor too. The general public by and large does not let Trump get away with saying the stupid shit he does. He gets called out all the time.

The thing here is, people know Trump says stupid shit. It's the status quo. People also know Hillary likes to lie when it's convenient (not that Trump doesn't lie too). So when both of them say anything, it's going to be met with heavy skepticism. I think the average American assumes "no boots on the ground" means literally 0 people. If that's not what she means then she needs to be clear about that.

She didn't say "no boots on the ground." She said "no ground troops!"

 

[Frozenprince]

No it's not a promise she can keep which is my biggest reason for disliking her.

 

[MIMIC]

She mentioned during the press conference this morning that she supports special operation forces and handler/trainers. Her comments are purely pertaining to a large scale ground troop deployment ala Iraq 2003 and that is absolutely a promise she can keep.

They mentioned that in the Washington Post article that she meant that she wasn't going to "invade Syria." And if she's saying that then.....that seems like the biggest no brainer of the century: "I'm not going to do to Syria what we did in Iraq."

I haven't seen her press conference, but the fact that she said it 4 times (and made no distinction between an invasion and ground troops -- in which there is a chasm of a difference) makes me question what she's even saying now if this is the case.

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

Welcome to the club!

He's just asking questions!

Except the OP probably agrees with Hillary's position, and is just implying she's a liar yet again.



Team Alucard was juniored, so someone needs to take up the slack.

Please shitpost more.

 

[whyamihere]

Dude, you've got to get over that. That's politics, and the same is going to happen in Hillary's favor too. The general public by and large does not let Trump get away with saying the stupid shit he does. He gets called out all the time.

The thing here is, people know Trump says stupid shit. It's the status quo. People also know Hillary likes to lie when it's convenient (not that Trump doesn't lie too). So when both of them say anything, it's going to be met with heavy skepticism. I think the average American assumes "no boots on the ground" means literally 0 people. If that's not what she means then she needs to be clear about that.

Good thing she was.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

If Clinton puts her foot down on an Iraq/Syria, is she lying?

They mentioned that in the Washington Post article that she meant that she wasn't going to "invade Syria." And if she's saying that then.....that seems like the biggest no brainer of the century: "I'm not going to do to Syria what we did in Iraq."

I haven't seen her press conference, but the fact that she said it 4 times (and made no distinction between an invasion and ground troops -- in which there is a chasm of a difference) makes me question what she's even saying now.

Of course it does

 

[whyamihere]

They mentioned that in the Washington Post article that she meant that she wasn't going to "invade Syria." And if she's saying that then.....that seems like the biggest no brainer of the century: "I'm not going to do to Syria what we did in Iraq."

I haven't seen her press conference, but the fact that she said it 4 times (and made no distinction between an invasion and ground troops -- in which there is a chasm of a difference) makes me question what she's even saying now if this is the case.

Seems like a good place to start since she expanded on what she talked about last night.

 

[Nafai1123]

Dude, you've got to get over that. That's politics, and the same is going to happen in Hillary's favor too. The general public by and large does not let Trump get away with saying the stupid shit he does. He gets called out all the time.

The thing here is, people know Trump says stupid shit. It's the status quo. People also know Hillary likes to lie when it's convenient (not that Trump doesn't lie too). So when both of them say anything, it's going to be met with heavy skepticism. I think the average American assumes "no boots on the ground" means literally 0 people. If that's not what she means then she needs to be clear about that.

I'm not commenting on the general public, I'm commenting on the general media, which adheres to completely different rules when covering the Clintons. For that reason I agree that she needs to be clear in any of her statements.

 

[Armaros]

They mentioned that in the Washington Post article that she meant that she wasn't going to "invade Syria." And if she's saying that then.....that seems like the biggest no brainer of the century: "I'm not going to do to Syria what we did in Iraq."

I haven't seen her press conference, but the fact that she said it 4 times (and made no distinction between an invasion and ground troops -- in which there is a chasm of a difference) makes me question what she's even saying now if this is the case.






Please shitpost more.

Its good to know you still post things without taking the time to review material that might answer your questions.

 

[eBay Huckster]

lol I'm starting to see a trend in what kind of threads the OP makes.

Nah, but I'm a dickhole for bringing this up in an email thread (the other kind of place he camps out in)

Between the zero self-awareness, as evidenced by "please shitpost more" in the same post as "I didn't watch the press conference", and literally only making threads and literally only posting in political threads if they can somehow tie into his raging hateboner for Clinton, am I actually wrong?

 

[Quixzlizx]

/\/\
Damn

They mentioned that in the Washington Post article that she meant that she wasn't going to "invade Syria." And if she's saying that then.....that seems like the biggest no brainer of the century: "I'm not going to do to Syria what we did in Iraq."

I haven't seen her press conference, but the fact that she said it 4 times (and made no distinction between an invasion and ground troops -- in which there is a chasm of a difference) makes me question what she's even saying now if this is the case.


Please shitpost more.

.

 

[MIMIC]

If Clinton puts her foot down on an Iraq/Syria, is she lying?

You can change your position to fit the situation. If ISIS blows up the White House then I think that's a good time to put some men on the ground. But considering her past (and considering what some are already recommending), I think it's fair to say that Hillary may need even less for that to happen.

But she outright ruled against ground troops. So......

Its good to know you still post things without taking the time to review material that might answer your questions.

So when she says something four times, I'm supposed to wait 24 hours to find out what she "really" meant? I don't think so.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do the people who think that "we already have ground troops" there that US has "ground troops" in Turkey, Japan, Germany, Central Asia, South Korea, Italy, Spain, Bahrain? Because we do

 

[Armaros]

You can change your position to fit the situation. If ISIS blows up the White House then I think that's a good time to put some men on the ground. But considering her past (and considering what some are already recommending), I think it's fair to say that Hillary may need even less for that to happen.

But she outright ruled against ground troops. So......



So when she says something four times, I'm supposed to wait 24 hours to find out what she "really" meant? I don't think so.

That would make sense if you posted this thread yesterday.

But you didnt.

So why didnt you watch the press conference before posting this barely an hour ago?

 

[Silver Arrows]

i don't have any skin in this election by not being American but it is so, SO obvious what OP is trying to do that it's actually painful to see him try to deny it

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

You can change your position to fit the situation. If ISIS blows up the White House then I think that's a good time to put some men on the ground. But considering her past (and considering what some are already recommending), I think it's fair to say that Hillary may need even less for that to happen.

But she outright ruled against ground troops. So......



So when she says something four times, I'm supposed to wait 24 hours to find out what she "really" meant? I don't think so.

No you're supposed to use your fucking brain and understand

1) Context
2) Connotation

Instead you make a thread (without actually having all the information you so desperately need to make an "educated opinion"), ask the questions nobody has the guts to ask!, and then cry when people point out that you're being extremely obtuse.

 

[whyamihere]

So when she says something four times, I'm supposed to wait 24 hours to find out what she "really" meant? I don't think so.

You made the thread. No one made you make a thread without all of the context and information.

 

[pigeon]

This thread perfectly illustrates why it is not productive to try to make rational, on-topic responses to MIMIC's posts.

 

[sflufan]

There are 6,000 US military personnel currently in Iraq and about 500 special operations personnel in Syria. Her statement was baffling to me.

 

[Oriel]

There tends to be a distinction made between regular troops and special operations units like SEALS and Delta Force. Not to mention CIA paramilitary officers on the ground. So really she's correct. More special forces in Syria/Iraq makes sense, along with military instructors to train the indigenous anti-ISIL, anti-Assad forces in those countries.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

There tends to be a distinction made between regular troops and special operations units like SEALS and Delta Force. Not to mention CIA paramilitary officers on the ground. So really she's correct. More special forces in Syria/Iraq makes sense, along with military instructors to train the indigenous anti-ISIL, anti-Assad forces in those countries.

Yeah her statement is accurate if you use the military definition of "boots on the ground" which generally does not inclusive special forces or trainers even if they are expected to be in combat.

Not saying it's a good way to explain the situation and her plan but it's generally understood what military personnel and politicians mean when they say "boots on the ground."

 

[sflufan]

There tends to be a distinction made between regular troops and special operations units like SEALS and Delta Force. Not to mention CIA paramilitary officers on the ground. So really she's correct. More special forces in Syria/Iraq makes sense, along with military instructors to train the indigenous anti-ISIL, anti-Assad forces in those countries.

The forces in Iraq are largely regular, non-spec ops units.

 

[MIMIC]

So here's the press conference (the relevant part):

QUESTION: You said unequivocally last night that you would not put troops into Iraq ever again. Isn’t, A, that ignoring some ground forces who are there; and B, boxing yourself in should your military commanders, if elected, advise that you in fact need to do that?

CLINTON: Well, Jeff (ph), first of all, I’ve said that before. I’ve said it on numerous occasions. I believe it. I think putting a big contingent of American ground troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria would not be in the best interest of the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups. In fact, I think it would fulfill one of their dearest wishes, which is to drag the United States back into a ground war in that region.

However, I’ve been very clear, and I said this again last night, I support the air campaign. I support special forces. I support enablers. I support surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance. I will absolutely be prepared to do whatever is necessary to support the Arab and Kurdish fighters on the ground to take out as much of the infrastructure of ISIS from the air; to go after Baghdadi, as I said today, with a very focused commitment to taking him off the battlefield.

CLINTON: I think the approach I’ve outlined intensifies what we are doing, but also recognizes that there is no, in my opinion, path forward to ground troops that would be in our interests.

So basically she was lying (or at least trying to make her plan more appealing): saying one thing to a much bigger audience of viewers and then completely backing off of the statement when pressed to explain herself. Not a single media outlet took her words last night to mean an invasion -- what she's saying here.

 

[PdotMichael]

At least Clinton is this time against troops in Iraq.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

This has to be self aware trolling

 

[User 463088]

So here's the press conference (the relevant part):



So basically she was lying (or at least trying to make her plan more appealing): saying one thing to a much bigger audience of viewers and then completely backing off of the statement when pressed to explain herself. Not a single media outlet took her words last night to mean an invasion -- what she's saying here.

I actually can't tell if you're serious or have taken this to some next level that I'm too stupid to follow...because what you just said makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[MIMIC]

I actually can't tell if you're serious or have taken this to some next level that I'm too stupid to follow...because what you just said makes no sense whatsoever.

She said that we wouldn't commit to ground troops last night. Which is wholly separate from an invasion, suggesting that we wouldn't even do the bare minimum in lending ground support to Syria (in an effort to keep soldiers from being killed).

Which 1) ignores the situation today and 2) is apparently not recommended

Today, she said that she "meant" that we wouldn't invade Syria (or however you want to characterize "invasion"), which suggests that keeping troops off the ground is totally off the table (something I was for). Added to the fact that she said that her plan is to "intensify" what we are currently doing.

So she's not going to invade Syria because of Iraq? Great! Neither would anyone else in the world. But last night she suggested that we wouldn't even do much less than that....but today she's saying that the "far less" option is something we would actually do.

Comparing her statements last night to that of today, they are two completely different things.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Yeah lets not do the one thing that could take them out, better to let them fester and keep poking them with airstrikes.

They will kill some more innocent people then we can build some expensive planes (and sell them to other countries too!) and increase our surveillance to keep us safe from these pesky terrorists that trust us, are on their heels, just a few more airstrikes!

Don't worry we are supporting those other guys on the ground. They are totally not going to take our weapons and money then end up fighting us like oh idk.

 

[commedieu]

Well. She's not wrong.


America has waited too long to do anything productive in syria. We aren't sending troops directly thay will have to come face to face with Russian backed assad forces, and whatever the hell turkey is up to.

We won't see any ground troops in Syria, like the Iraq missvasion.

 

[commedieu]

Yeah lets not do the one thing that could take them out, better to let them fester and keep poking them with airstrikes.

They will kill some more innocent people then we can build some expensive planes (and sell them to other countries too!) and increase our surveillance to keep us safe from these pesky terrorists that trust us, are on their heels, just a few more airstrikes!

Don't worry we are supporting those other guys on the ground. They are totally not going to take our weapons and money then end up fighting us like oh idk.

Pfft..


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/0...gulmurod-khalimov-made-isis-minister-war.html

Wait...

 

[Spoiled Milk]

She said that we wouldn't commit to ground troops last night. Which is wholly separate from an invasion, suggesting that we wouldn't even do the bare minimum in lending ground support to Syria (in an effort to keep soldiers from being killed).

Which 1) ignores the situation today and 2) is apparently not recommended

Today, she said that she "meant" that we wouldn't invade Syria (or however you want to characterize "invasion"), which suggests that keeping troops off the ground is totally off the table (something I was for). Added to the fact that she said that her plan is to "intensify" what we are currently doing.

So she's not going to invade Syria because of Iraq? Great! Neither would anyone else in the world. But last night she suggested that we wouldn't even do much less than that....but today she's saying that the "far less" option is something we would actually do.

Comparing her statements last night to that of today, they are two completely different things.

So why don't you just go with what's in the press conference?