16 times Obama pronounced there would be no boots on a belligerent in Syria

WASHINGTON — Since 2013, President Obama has regularly vowed that there would be no “boots on a ground” in Syria.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest pronounced a president’s preference Friday to send adult to 50 special army infantry to Syria doesn’t change a elemental strategy: “This is an critical thing for a American people to understand. These army do not have a quarrel mission.”

Earnest pronounced a promises of “no boots on a ground” initial came in a context of stealing Syrian President Bashar Assad since of his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Syria has turn a breakwater for Islamic State fighters.

Here’s a summation of Obama’s no-boots pledge:

Remarks before assembly with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

“In no eventuality are we concern any kind of infantry movement that would involve boots on a ground, that would engage a long-term campaign. But we are looking during a probability of a limited, slight act that would assistance make certain that not only Syria, yet others around a world, know that a general village cares about progressing this chemical weapons anathema and norm. So again, we repeat, we’re not concern any open-ended commitment. We’re not concern any boots-on-the-ground approach.”

Remarks in a Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

“After clever deliberation, we have motionless that a United States should take infantry movement against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on a ground. Instead, a movement would be designed to be singular in generation and scope.”

Statement before assembly with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

“So a pivotal indicate that we wish to stress to a American people: The infantry devise that has been grown by a Joint Chiefs — and that we trust is suitable — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on a ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.”

News discussion in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

“I consider America recognizes that, as formidable as it is to take any infantry movement — even one as singular as we’re articulate about, even one without boots on a belligerent — that’s a solemn decision.”

News discussion in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

“The doubt for a American people is, is that shortcoming that we’ll be peaceful to bear? And we trust that when we have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on a ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not yet any risks, yet with docile risks — that we should be peaceful to bear that responsibility.”

Weekly radio address, Sept. 7, 2013

“What we’re not articulate about is an open-ended intervention. This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan. There would be no American boots on a ground. Any movement we take would be limited, both in time and scope, designed to deter the Syrian Government from gassing a possess people again and reduce a ability to do so.”

Interview with a PBS Newshour

“Tomorrow I’ll pronounce to a American people. I’ll explain this is not Iraq; this is not Afghanistan; this is not even Libya. We’re not articulate about — not boots on a ground. We’re not articulate about postulated airstrikes. We’re articulate about a really specific set of strikes to reduce his chemical weapons capabilities in terms of delivery.”

Interview with CBS Evening News

“What I’m going to try to introduce is that we have a really specific objective, a really slight infantry option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale advance of Syria or impasse or boots on a ground; zero like that. This isn’t like Iraq. It’s not like Afghanistan. It’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will commend since we consider this is so important.”

Address to a Nation, Sept. 10, 2013

“Many of we have asked, won’t this put us on a sleazy slope to another war? One male wrote to me that we are ‘still recuperating from a impasse in Iraq.’ A maestro put it some-more bluntly: ‘This republic is ill and sleepy of war.’ My answer is simple: we will not put American boots on a ground in Syria. we will not pursue an open-ended movement like Iraq or Afghanistan. we will not pursue a enlarged atmosphere debate like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to grasp a transparent objective: deterring a use of chemical weapons and spiritless Assad’s capabilities.”

Interview on Bloomberg View, Feb, 27, 2014

“We are doing all we can to see how we can do that and how we can apparatus it. But I’ve looked during a whole lot of diversion plans, a whole lot of quarrel plans, a whole garland of scenarios, and nobody has been means to convince me that us holding large-scale infantry movement even absent boots on a ground, would indeed solve a problem.”

News discussion in Newport, Wales, Sept. 5, 2014

“With honour to a conditions on a belligerent in Syria, we will not be fixation U.S. ground troops to try to control a areas that are partial of a dispute inside of Syria. we don’t consider that’s required for us to accomplish a goal. We are going to have to find effective partners on a belligerent to pull behind opposite ISIL.”

Interview with Meet a Press

“(You) cannot, over a enlarged tenure or even a middle term, understanding with this problem by carrying a United States serially occupy several countries all around a Middle East. We don’t have a resources. It puts huge strains on a military. And during some point, we leave. And afterwards things blow adult again. So we’ve got to have a some-more tolerable strategy, that means the boots on a ground have to be Iraqi. And and in Syria, the boots on a ground have to be Syrian. … I will haven a right to always strengthen a American people and go after folks who are perplexing to harm us wherever they are. But in terms of determining territory, we’re going to have to rise a assuage Sunni antithesis that can control domain and that we can work with. The idea that a United States should be putting boots on a ground, we consider would be a surpassing mistake. And we wish to be really transparent and really pithy about that.”

Address to a Nation on Syria, Sept. 10, 2014

“I wish a American people to know how this bid will be opposite from a wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not engage American quarrel infantry fighting on unfamiliar soil. This counterterrorism debate will be waged by a steady, relentless bid to take out ISIL wherever they exist, regulating a atmosphere energy and a support for partner army on a ground.”

News discussion in Brisbane, Australia, Nov. 16, 2014

“Yes, there are always resources in that a United States competence need to muster U.S. ground troops. If we detected that ISIL had gotten possession of a chief weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then, yes, we can expect that not usually would Chairman Dempsey suggest me promulgation U.S. ground troops to get that arms out of their hands, yet we would sequence it. So a doubt only ends adult being, what are those circumstances? I’m not going assume on those. Right now we’re relocating brazen in and with superb allies like Australia in training Iraqi confidence army to do their pursuit on a ground.”

Remarks during a White House, Feb. 11, 2015

“The fortitude we’ve submitted now does not call for a deployment of U.S. belligerent quarrel army to Iraq or Syria. It is not a authorisation of another belligerent war, like Afghanistan or Iraq. … As I’ve pronounced before, I’m assured that a United States should not get dragged behind into another enlarged belligerent quarrel in a Middle East. That’s not in a inhabitant confidence interest, and it’s not required for us to better ISIL. Local army on a belligerent who know their countries best are best positioned to take a belligerent quarrel to ISIL, and that’s what they’re doing.”

Remarks during a Pentagon, Jul 6, 2015

“There are no stream skeleton to do so. That’s not something that we now discussed. I’ve always pronounced that I’m going to do what’s required to strengthen a homeland. One of a beliefs that we all determine on, though, and we pulpy folks flattering tough since in these conversations with my infantry advisers we wish to make certain I’m removing blunt and unadulterated, uncensored advice. But in each one of a conversations that we’ve had, a clever accord is that in sequence for us to attain long-term in this quarrel opposite ISIL, we have to rise internal confidence army that can means progress. It is not adequate for us to simply send in American troops to temporarily set behind organizations like ISIL, yet to then, as shortly as we leave, see that blank filled once again with extremists.”

Article source: http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/121446829/0/usatodaycomwashington-topstories~times-Obama-said-there-would-be-no-boots-on-the-ground-in-Syria/