No, that's not what was confusing me. What was confusing me was whether or not she was saying that she would put U.S. forces on the ground in head-to-head combat with ISIS (instead of simply arming/aiding the locals). She said she wouldn't do that, which is what I originally agreed with.
Today, I got the impression that she was backing off of that claim, sending an even more aggressive message (she even said that she wanted to "intensify" our approach....or maybe someone can clarify what she meant by that)....but at the same time, still no ground troops. Seem a little hard for me to believe. Last night was a less aggressive policy, but today's is the opposite to me.
I just don't get the same unequivocal message as last night.
So right now, Obama has been taking a more hands on approach to Syria and Iraq. This is after moths and months of him not doing much and the region spiraling out of control. Without a doubt the way Obama handled Syria is his biggest foreign policy disaster, because whilst bloodshed and destruction of the country was inevitable, it is possible with a more hands on approach a change of government could have happened. It wouldn't have been perfect, think Libya, but it would've been a hell of a lot better than it is now. Or maybe not, it's hard to tell. Certainly, Russia took more offense to the idea of NATO in Syria than in Libya. It's possible the blowback would've made something equally messed up, but in a different way. All I know is Obama made the wrong choice, but what exactly the right choice was we will probably never know.
The last year or so Obama has been working more with the Syrian Democratic Forces (AKA the Kurds) in order to fight ISIS, whilst not doing much to extend the fight. The SDF don't really care about an overthrow of the Assad regime, nor about fighting them outside of their borders. Why would they spend the effort when it would likely backfire and bite them in the ass? The US is also somewhat backing the Free Syrian Army and affiliated groups, which are Sunni with the primary objective trying to overthrow the Assad regime, but also fighting ISIS as a secondary objective. We're not helping them as much as the SDF, because it's hard to direct funds to them without having it end up in the hands of terrorists, given how fucked the situation is. It's tricky to say the least.
Clinton is more aggressive than Obama on foreign policy, although people often exaggerate that to an extreme degree. Her plan for Syria is to weaken the Assad regime by implementing a no fly zone (with the added benefit that they are less likely to drop poison gas on certain cities, and glass others), and fund groups fighting ISIS even more than Obama so that their territory continues to shrink. This includes sending people to train the SDF and FSA, as well as supplying arms, and rarely having special operatives lead offensives.
What she is absolutely
NOT going to do is send a large influx (say 1,000+) of troops to either Iraq and Syria. Even if she wanted to (which she doesn't), it would be supremely unpopular, and for good reason. We just got out of Iraq, are currently in Afghanistan, and certainly don't want to make the clusterfuck of Syria wholly our problem. Russia tried that and it backfired in their face hard. It is incredibly obtuse to say there are ground forces already in Syria, because under that definition, there would be ground troops in dozens of countries. When referring to ground troops, it is meant an invasion, ala Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Keep in mind, the entirety of the post I just wrote is a very simplified version of what is going on right now. The whole thing, including America's policy is a mess, and no matter what direction taken, Syria will not be resolved in the near future. Honestly, I can unfortunately see the country being stuck in a state of perpetual warfare for years and years to come. There are too many forces that all want different things, and so nobody gets what they want, and all the while innocents die. It's terribly fucked, but there is no easy out.
