Panetta & Dempsey: no US troops in Syria

| January 11, 2013

The Washington Times‘ Kristina Wong reports that Secretary of Defense leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey told reporters that the US isn’t planning to put boots on the ground in Syria, especially if chemical weapons are used against the rebels there;

“We’re not working on options that involve boots on the ground,” Mr. Panetta said at a Pentagon briefing. “I think you always have to keep the possibility that, if there is a peaceful transition and international organizations get involved, that they might ask for assistance in that situation. But in a hostile situation, we’re not planning for that.”

He said the greater challenge is deciding what steps the international community can take to ensure those weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

“That is a discussion that we are having, not only with the Israelis but with other countries in the region, to try to look at, you know, what steps need to be taken in order to make sure that these sites are secured and that they don’t wind up in the wrong hands,” Mr. Panetta said.

Yeah, it sounds like a bunch of jibber-jabber to me, too. I’m so sure that whoever ends up in charge of Syria is going to allow Israeli troops into the country. The quotes from Dempsey are just as unintelligible. It doesn’t explain why they said they’d need 75,000 troops in Syria – certainly there’s been planning, if they arrived at that number back in November.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Military issues

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TopGoz says:

    With this bunch, if they hold a press conference to announce what they are not going to do, it really means that they plan on doing exactly what they currently claim they won’t do. Later, they will say that the situation has changed, so their initial assessment is no longer valid and blah, blah, peacekeepers, blah, humanitarian, blah, drones, etc.

  2. NHSparky says:

    Pretty much anytime Obozo or any of his cronies utter the phrase, “Let me be perfectly clear…” the autotranslator spits out, “This is gonna be a fucking pantload, stand by.”

  3. Twist says:

    TopGoz, I’m pretty sure the code word is “evolved”.

  4. AW1 Tim says:

    Due to “unexpected” events the past few days, blah blah blah…….

    A man could actually win a lot playing bullshit bingo with these jackwagons.

    Myself, I’d love to pay more attention to them, but I’m kinda busy getting things in order to protect my family and myself from these worthless smegma factories and all the laws/regulations/advisements/changes/etc that their mountains of unelected bureaucrats are churning out.

    It’s gonna take us a generation to undo the damage they’ve done in just 4 years, and there’s 4 more to go if we can’t stop them somehow.

  5. Flagwaver says:

    If we put troops in Syria, all that means is that they will get dosed with Chem Weapons the moment one side finally beats the other. Oh, and it will be their fault for not being more culturally sensitive… This government is being run by a bunch of retards!

  6. BK says:

    I can’t find it anywhere but the Russian press, but supposedly, the rebels have themselves used captured chemical weapons in Daraya.

    I don’t doubt it, given who they are, but it troubles me that even unconfirmed reports go unreported in our media, given their penchant for reporting without confirmation.

  7. FatCircles0311 says:

    We have no business in that shit hole. Let terrorists fight terrorists. This does however surely sound like the air power doctrine of the Clinton era and we know how well that turned out.