SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Hillary Syria Fact Check: 'Safe Zones' Equals 'Ground Troops'
Oct 20, 2015
During the first Democratic presidential debate, the following exchange took place between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about U.S. policy in Syria: [my emphasis]
CLINTON: ... And, to -- provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position, which is what I'm advocating.
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
CLINTON: ...Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders.
Hillary's claim that "nobody" supports sending US ground troops to Syria was fundamentally misleading because whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria - as Hillary did in her previous utterance to which Sanders was responding - is calling for "ground troops." This fact was made clear by a well-publicized exchange in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16 between Senator John McCain, chair of the committee, and General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command ["CENTCOM"], in which McCain pressed General Austin to say that he favored establishing "safe zones" in Syria and General Austin refused to do so, because a "safe zone" would require a "ground force." The video of the exchange is here. The full video of the hearing is here.
MCCAIN: Would you recommend a no-fly zone in Syria?
AUSTIN: I would not recommend it at this point, sir.
MCCAIN: ... Would you recommend telling -- setting up a buffer zone in Syria where these refugees might...
AUSTIN: It will take a ground force to be able to protect the refugees if we do that, sir.
MCCAIN: Would you support a buffer zone which would then protect some of these refugees ...?
AUSTIN: I don't see the force available to be able to protect them currently, sir. So I would not recommend it at this point in time.
Whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria is saying, "I agree with John McCain that we should send US ground troops to Syria." Or else they say, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without supporting the means to implement it." Or else they are saying, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without understanding or caring what means would be necessary to implement it." Or else they are saying: "I believe that General Austin was lying when he said that ground troops would be necessary to establish a 'safe zone.'" What are the other possibilities?
(Have you noticed how Republicans who demand that we "listen to our generals" when they ask for more troops don't seem to be interested in listening to our generals when they say "that's not going to work unless we send troops"?)
The next person you meet on the street could be forgiven for not knowing that "safe zone" = "ground troops." Not everyone watches Congressional hearings or follows them carefully in the media. But anyone who is running to be President of the United States, who is criticizing the Obama Administration for not being "tough" enough in Syria, who claims to have a magic bullet called "safe zone" to make everything wonderful in Syria that the Obama Administration could easily use if only it were not so wimpy, must concede that "safe zone" means "ground troops," so if they are calling for "safe zones," they are calling for "ground troops."
You can urge Congress to oppose the use of US ground troops in Syria here.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
bernie sanderscentcomelection 2016hillary clintonisisjohn mccainobama administrationpresidential debatepresidential debatesrefugeessenate armed services committeesyriaus military
During the first Democratic presidential debate, the following exchange took place between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about U.S. policy in Syria: [my emphasis]
CLINTON: ... And, to -- provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position, which is what I'm advocating.
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
CLINTON: ...Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders.
Hillary's claim that "nobody" supports sending US ground troops to Syria was fundamentally misleading because whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria - as Hillary did in her previous utterance to which Sanders was responding - is calling for "ground troops." This fact was made clear by a well-publicized exchange in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16 between Senator John McCain, chair of the committee, and General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command ["CENTCOM"], in which McCain pressed General Austin to say that he favored establishing "safe zones" in Syria and General Austin refused to do so, because a "safe zone" would require a "ground force." The video of the exchange is here. The full video of the hearing is here.
MCCAIN: Would you recommend a no-fly zone in Syria?
AUSTIN: I would not recommend it at this point, sir.
MCCAIN: ... Would you recommend telling -- setting up a buffer zone in Syria where these refugees might...
AUSTIN: It will take a ground force to be able to protect the refugees if we do that, sir.
MCCAIN: Would you support a buffer zone which would then protect some of these refugees ...?
AUSTIN: I don't see the force available to be able to protect them currently, sir. So I would not recommend it at this point in time.
Whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria is saying, "I agree with John McCain that we should send US ground troops to Syria." Or else they say, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without supporting the means to implement it." Or else they are saying, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without understanding or caring what means would be necessary to implement it." Or else they are saying: "I believe that General Austin was lying when he said that ground troops would be necessary to establish a 'safe zone.'" What are the other possibilities?
(Have you noticed how Republicans who demand that we "listen to our generals" when they ask for more troops don't seem to be interested in listening to our generals when they say "that's not going to work unless we send troops"?)
The next person you meet on the street could be forgiven for not knowing that "safe zone" = "ground troops." Not everyone watches Congressional hearings or follows them carefully in the media. But anyone who is running to be President of the United States, who is criticizing the Obama Administration for not being "tough" enough in Syria, who claims to have a magic bullet called "safe zone" to make everything wonderful in Syria that the Obama Administration could easily use if only it were not so wimpy, must concede that "safe zone" means "ground troops," so if they are calling for "safe zones," they are calling for "ground troops."
You can urge Congress to oppose the use of US ground troops in Syria here.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
During the first Democratic presidential debate, the following exchange took place between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders about U.S. policy in Syria: [my emphasis]
CLINTON: ... And, to -- provide safe zones so that people are not going to have to be flooding out of Syria at the rate they are. And, I think it's important too that the United States make it very clear to Putin that it's not acceptable for him to be in Syria creating more chaos, bombing people on behalf of Assad, and we can't do that if we don't take more of a leadership position, which is what I'm advocating.
SANDERS: Well, let's understand that when we talk about Syria, you're talking about a quagmire in a quagmire. You're talking about groups of people trying to overthrow Assad, other groups of people fighting ISIS. You're talking about people who are fighting ISIS using their guns to overthrow Assad, and vice versa. I'm the former chairman of the Senate Veterans Committee, and in that capacity I learned a very powerful lesson about the cost of war, and I will do everything that I can to make sure that the United States does not get involved in another quagmire like we did in Iraq, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. We should be putting together a coalition of Arab countries who should be leading the effort. We should be supportive, but I do not support American ground troops in Syria.
CLINTON: ...Well, nobody does. Nobody does, Senator Sanders.
Hillary's claim that "nobody" supports sending US ground troops to Syria was fundamentally misleading because whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria - as Hillary did in her previous utterance to which Sanders was responding - is calling for "ground troops." This fact was made clear by a well-publicized exchange in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16 between Senator John McCain, chair of the committee, and General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command ["CENTCOM"], in which McCain pressed General Austin to say that he favored establishing "safe zones" in Syria and General Austin refused to do so, because a "safe zone" would require a "ground force." The video of the exchange is here. The full video of the hearing is here.
MCCAIN: Would you recommend a no-fly zone in Syria?
AUSTIN: I would not recommend it at this point, sir.
MCCAIN: ... Would you recommend telling -- setting up a buffer zone in Syria where these refugees might...
AUSTIN: It will take a ground force to be able to protect the refugees if we do that, sir.
MCCAIN: Would you support a buffer zone which would then protect some of these refugees ...?
AUSTIN: I don't see the force available to be able to protect them currently, sir. So I would not recommend it at this point in time.
Whoever calls for the US to establish a "safe zone" in Syria is saying, "I agree with John McCain that we should send US ground troops to Syria." Or else they say, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without supporting the means to implement it." Or else they are saying, "I believe in calling for a policy to be implemented without understanding or caring what means would be necessary to implement it." Or else they are saying: "I believe that General Austin was lying when he said that ground troops would be necessary to establish a 'safe zone.'" What are the other possibilities?
(Have you noticed how Republicans who demand that we "listen to our generals" when they ask for more troops don't seem to be interested in listening to our generals when they say "that's not going to work unless we send troops"?)
The next person you meet on the street could be forgiven for not knowing that "safe zone" = "ground troops." Not everyone watches Congressional hearings or follows them carefully in the media. But anyone who is running to be President of the United States, who is criticizing the Obama Administration for not being "tough" enough in Syria, who claims to have a magic bullet called "safe zone" to make everything wonderful in Syria that the Obama Administration could easily use if only it were not so wimpy, must concede that "safe zone" means "ground troops," so if they are calling for "safe zones," they are calling for "ground troops."
You can urge Congress to oppose the use of US ground troops in Syria here.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.