U.S. troops not leaving Syria until goals accomplished: Haley
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Sunday that the United States would not pull its troops out of Syria until its goals were accomplished.
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Haley listed three aims for the United States:
- ensuring that chemical weapons are not used in any way that pose a risk to U.S. interests,
- that Islamic State is defeated,
- and that there is a good vantage point to watch what Iran is doing.
United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during the emergency United Nations
Security Council meeting on Syria at the U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., April 14, 2018.
REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
It is our goal “to see American troops come home, but we are not going to leave until we know we have accomplished those things,” Haley said.
Trump, who on Friday joined France and Britain in ordering missile strikes against Syrian targets, has sent mixed signals on Syria.
He has made clear he wants to withdraw the roughly 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria involved in the anti-Islamic State campaign. But he appeared to contradict that message when he said on Saturday that Western allies were prepared to “sustain” the military response if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad does not stop using prohibited chemical weapons.
Asked about U.S.-Russia relations, Haley said ties were “very strained” but that the United States still hoped for a better relationship.
=============================
Reporting by Caren Bohan and Susan Cornwell; Editing by Lisa Shumaker
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
The third "goal"
... is basically a blank check to stay in Syria forever.
America's Eternal Middle East War.
And just leave the innocent civilians to be gassed? How very noble.
Do you really imagine that these raids made any difference?
Thanks Obama.
Actually... Obama only continued Bush II's war.
But don't let reality impinge on your world...
Funny how someone who just won a Nobel Prize for Peace just "continued" someone else's war.
Nicky Haley just won the Nobel Peace Prize? Gee...
No, not that I know of.
What have YOU heard?
I perfectly remember the left making the claim that "Obama ended the war in Iraq". You all trumpeted like he was god and then turned around a few months later and send US Soldiers back in as well as expanding the operations to Syria.
I don't remember that, but it makes no difference. The war that began in Afghanistan seventeen years ago is still killing lots of people every day, regardless of who said what.
It's long past time to recognize that sending troops on open-ended missions in profoundly hostile territory... is a very bad idea.
There's no way to defeat a quagmire.
Welcome to the world of warfare. Bad idea or not, that's how it works.
So you are endorsing America's
EternalInterminable Middle East War.Stating how things are in reality is different than endorsing it.
Ok... Then... What is your opinion? And why?
My opinion is he wasn't endorsing sending troops on open-ended missions in extremely hostile territory.
I saw nothing in his post that indicated he was advocating that.
What did you read?
The problem is, his "reality" is much different that what the rest of us call reality.
Not endorsing it. Telling you as somebody who has been there 8 times. Setting an "end date" is unrealistic even for the most basic operations.
Gulf War I had a defined, measurable objective. When that objective was achieved, the war was over and our military came home.
Bush I did it right.
Because Bush Sr. didn't have congressional approval. So it was only the maximum the President could authorize. Bush Jr got congressional approval. 2 completely different scenarios.
Congressional approval is irrelevant here. There are two possibilities:
- there's a defined end, before operations begin,
- there's no end defined.
In the first case, it's easy to end the war. In the second, quagmire is guaranteed... with or without Congressional approval.
LOL I trust what Haley says about as much as I trust what trump says.
And that is zero
I dont trust a word trump says and never did. with people like trump all you can truly believe is their deeds.
Trump himself said " I dont believe much in words, I believe in deeds.
I take that to mean, in other words "I'll say anything I need to get what I want."
Seems to be the case.
Don't ask me how Boris Johnson is relevant to the seed. I have no idea.
No sense in pulling out until the job is done.
We've seen what happens when we have done that.
America's Eternal Middle East War.
Might be eternal. Might not be.
As long as certain factions continue to call for Israel's destruction, I am sure we will need to have a presence there.
It started in 2001. Seventeen years later, the mess is worse than before the war began.
So... doubling down may not be the best way to go...
17 years is a far, far cry from eternal.
It's America's longest war already, with no end in sight.
Not to be argumentative but could be maintained that it all really started with the advent of Islam but more recently 1918, 1947 and 1967 could also be identified as years when, "It all began". Let's be honest. What the evangelical fundamentalist alt-right wants it a "Crusade" against Islam, again. In any case the term I would use to describe the US's costly, vain and futile involvement in middle-eastern affairs as interminable...
Which is not eternal.
See the difference?
Eternal is forever.
That's a better word...
It got really bad between 2008 and 2016. Never had to adhere to such restrictions and put up with so much bullshit in my entire career.
But what if "the job" is never done?
What if that's the objective?
Goals normally come with measurable criteria. The White House and Haley can espouse talking points all day long, it doesn't qualify as policy.
One would assume that the goal is to get Syria to stop using chemical weapons on its own citizens.
What would you think the goal is?
If that were the goal, all chemical producing facilities would have been the scope of the mission.
Really? What about chemical-producing plants that had nothing to do with weapons?
Not sure WTH you are talking about.
No need to be obtuse. I was politely responding to your assumption.
Our President unwound Haley's comments regarding additional Russian sanctions only mentioned yesterday as part of our plan. The need for measurable goals is evident, flying by the seat of Trumps pants is not the answer.
Yea, Tennessee too.
Well, I suppose Trump could have followed his predecessor's act and simply drew a red line in the sand.
THAT sure worked, right?
Obama's red-line was a complete and utter failure of leadership ~ didn't support it then. Equating a past Dem President to the current Rep President only plays for those who are party lemmings...I'm not.
As I said earlier in the month, this is like a pinball machine. One day Mr. Trump is saying one thing, next day Ms. Haley is saying something else. Have to keep your eye on the ball.
IMO, the air strikes aren't going to change Assad's mission. We are not going to put in sufficient ground troops to overthrow Assad. Nor should we.
With the Russians and Iran on the ground and supporting Assad, we are caught in a position of throwing some missiles at them, but beyond that there is little that we can do.
Of course when the times comes we pull out and leave the Kurds and their allies to their own fate. Something that we've done in the past.
America's
EternalInterminable Middle East War.