President Obama tells People magazine he has 'no intention' to send troops to Yemen or Somalia

[bigtree]

January 10, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says he has no intention of sending American troops to Yemen or Somalia.

"I never rule out any possibility in a world that is this complex," Obama said. However, he said, "in countries like Yemen, in countries like Somalia, I think working with international partners is most effective at this point."

"I have no intention of sending U.S. boots on the ground in these regions," Obama said.

Gen. David Petraeus, who is overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Yemen's foreign minister has made it "quite clear that Yemen does not want to have American ground troops there. And that's a ... good response for us to hear, certainly."

In an interview broadcast Sunday, Petraeus added: "We would always want a host nation to deal with a problem itself. We want to help. We're providing assistance."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5gYDhBomJDa3OsBAYicESGnukw3Gw

[Orrex]

1. Interestingly "I have no intention" is corporate-speak for "I guarantee that this will happen."

Curious...

[NightWatcher]

2. fwiw, hasnt Iraq made it quite clear that they dont want to have US troops...?

[bigtree]

7. you mean Yemen?

Yemen has said they don't want troops. Interesting that the president has to clarify his stance beyond that, revealingly leaving himself room for yet another breach of sovereign territory if he deems it appropriate.

I think it would be a foolish provocation to those in the region who abhor our military presence and activity. I'm sure he realizes this. I think he does.

[spanone]

3. i doubt if the President is spending much time talking to people magazine

[bigtree]

4. interesting that their interview broke this response

[Captain Hilts]

5. Wilson and FDR said the same thing about foreign wars. The Prez said the right thing

regardless of what he eventually does.

[tekisui]

6. No need for troops, we have drones!

And the ability to bomb the hell out of anyone we choose.

[frog92969]

15. When you arrest suspects with missles...

it cuts out the inconvenient custody, trial and incarceration parts.

[Arkana]

8. So even though he's said "No goddamn troops", people here

are still screaming "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE BLARGH ARGH *foam*"?

[Fumesucker]

11. He was going t o support a filibuster against FISA and telecom immunity..

Until he voted for it..

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. President Obama said "No goddamn troops"? Gosh I miss so much lately.

How could I have missed a quote like that?

Wow, the balls on that guy huh? "goddamn"? Whoa.

[rug]

9. "at this point"

:eyes:

[Alamuti Lotus]

10. IOW: "boots are already on the ground in these locations, please look away"

[StarfarerBill]

13. As we draw down in Iraq, we'll see.

Yemen's internal fights are heating up, and the Islamic elements will ever be in the foreground; if they get to talking too much about jihad that close to Saudi Arabia, the oil companies, the Pentagon, and CIA may decide that we need to put our foot down.

Besides, the MIC gets used to a certain level of profit, and won't want to wean itself from that extra-heavy torrent of cash...

[aquart]

14. Somalia??? When did we decide to go to Somalia???

[aquart]

16. Somalia??? When did we decide to go to Somalia???

[dionysus]

18. we didn't. some here have decided obama is going to invade yemen, somalia, pakistan, and venezuela.

[bigtree]

20. can't think of a reason why somone would believe he'd deploy more troops

. . . across sovereign borders as part of his continuation of Bush's terror war against the ghosts and remnants of al-Qaeda.

Good thing he's completely ruled that out . . . wait . . . "at this point?"

"I never rule out any possibility in a world that is this complex," Obama said.

[dionysus]

21. i think you're nitpicking or reaching.

[bigtree]

28. the issue here isn't restricted to what I think

There is also the chorus from the republican opposition for more direct intervention which the president is mostly responding to. There's also the speculation and fears coming from Yemen. I can't help it of you insist on viewing these events and responses through some narrow defense of this administration. There is just too much at stake to just sit back and assume this administration and their military leadership recognize the need for restraint and that eschewing direct military intervention in Yemen is some forgone conclusion to them. This present bunch of holdovers at the Pentagon don't deserve that consideration.

[dionysus]

31. i'm not "defending the administration", i just highly doubt you'll see us invading yemen.

edit:typo

[bigtree]

32. ok

. . . well, at this point, I agree. Initially, however, there was no telling what the response would be from the seemingly defensive administration. I actually think the speculation provided the impetus for these statements of restraint. What we don't need is silence in the face of the calls for more direct intervention.

[aquart]

22. We're already in Pakistan, aren't we?

Or does Blackwater not count?

<http://afpakwar.com/blog/archives/1588>

[aquart]

23. Then there's this:

<http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=Blackwater+Somalia&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=292ac4760832f3c4>

Blackwater sets sights on Somali pirates

Blackwater Steps Up to Take on Somali Pirates - Offers its ...

US to make Blackwater-style entry into Somalia

etc.

[cherokeeprogressive]

24. No one in their right mind would invade Venezuela...

It's widely known that Hugo Chavez could repel ANY attackers by simply sticking out his chest.

He could also simply open his mouth and kill attackers instantly by bathing them in the truth that emits from his vocal chords.

No, Hugo Chavez is invincible. I'm surprised no one remembered to send you the memo.

[kenny blankenship]

17. I'm sure mercenary armies don't count.

Who would be so unfair as to count mercenaries and "contractors" as troops?

[inna]

19. it'd be insane if he had such an intention. geez.

[jpak]

25. You Lie! Don't believe him! Obama = Bush! He's invading right now and carpet bombing civilians

It's a conspiracy!!!1111

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

[bigtree]

30. The article references the president himself

. . . refusing to rule out what he insists he's not contemplating (right now).

The 'conspiracy' is from folks intent on defending any and all statements and positions from this administration - no matter what the consequence of those decisions and positions. The defenses have devolved here at DU from sensible admonitions into clownish ridicule of legitimate criticisms. To what end?

[Arkana]

33. So because he's not rejecting AND denouncing the idea of troops in Yemen

that means he's seriously contemplating it and he's a filthy war criminal and we should lock him up in the Hague, right?

Just making sure I have it straight.

We're not going to war with Yemen. It's not going to happen. We elected Obama and his guys specifically so shit like this WOULDN'T happen. Fucking A, where the HELL were you people during the campaign when he was talking about foreign policy?

[bigtree]

36. I don't see where you read that into any of my posts

Of course, any speculation here has to be treated like we're in some campaign, but I'm not the only one to weigh the pros and cons of military action in Yemen and questioned the administration's intentions. For me, the president actually has to DEMONSTRATE his anti-interventionism, but I do take his word on this, right now. You do know this is his FIRST definitive statement on the prospect of troops in Yemen?

[emilyg]

26. Anything he says I take

with a grain of salt.

[spoony]

27. Not troops, just bombs, yay.

Modern war is fun! :crazy:

[eilen]

29. Well, it isn't a campaign promise

but he did add a qualifier.

[kayla9170]

34. Good!

We cannot have troops all over the world. We are in enough places right now.

[Solly Mack]

35. We already have troops in Yemen

If you (that's the general you) read the article Petraeus states no ground troops.

Obama phrases it as "U.S. boots on the ground"

Saying no ground troops isn't the same as saying no troops of any kind at all. Neither is "U.S. boots on the ground" saying that...

Saying no ground troops is supposed to indicate (in the context used) - no combat troops in large number.

Petraeus also says, "We're providing assistance"...that's either we are or we were and not we will if asked.(and it's not were either)


The entire passage clearly puts it in the present.

That said...there are always old news articles. US special forces train Yemen army as Arab state becomes al-Qaeda 'reserve base'

And we already have troops (operating) in Somalia: US troops raid Somali town controlled by fighters


IN and operating in are 2 different things.

Somalia is just a stones throw from Djibouti - where US troops have been stationed/building up for a while now.





Horn of Africa/Combined Joint Task Force



I'm not saying this means that ground troops will or won't be used....I'm just saying American troops are already in & operating in both places.

[bigtree]

37. great points

The defenses seem to be that the president is far removed from any type of destabilizing military action there, but I see us as just a hair away from tipping the U.S. apple cart in Yemen.

[Solly Mack]

38. A very thin hair at that

[Robb]

39. By that proximity argument

...we're just a hair's breadth away from invading China, as well.

That's not particularly likely.

[Solly Mack]

40. I'm not arguing proximity as the cause...I merely pointed out we're next door

and showing where we are (most likely) operating from (Djibouti) when we operate in (Somalia)

We're physically IN Yemen.

[bigtree]

41. I really don't think 'invasion' is the only concern

. . .about U.S. military activity and support in Yemen and Somalia. ALL American military activity there, right now, has the potential of escalating specific conflicts in the country with insurgent forces and rebellions against the U.S.-cooperative Yemeni regime. It makes perfect sense to highlight the difficulties and counsel restraint and as much non-interference and non-conflation of the conflicts there with our own 'terror war' as possible.

[Solly Mack]

42. Exactly. Invasion isn't the primary concern...it's the escalation of internal conflicts

within the countries...which could, in turn, lead to an invasion.