President Obama: No U.S.-Led Ground Invasion Of Syria

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses a news conference following a working session at the Group of 20 leaders summit in the Mediterranean resort city of Antalya, Turkey, on November 16, 2015. REUTERS/UMIT BEKTAS

The Guardian: Obama rules out Syria ground invasion in passionate defence of Isis strategy

President responds angrily to mounting pressure to put ‘boots on the ground’ in wake of Paris attacks and warns against toll of repeated US interventions.

A visibly emotional Barack Obama rejected growing clamour for a US-led ground invasion of Syria on Monday in the most passionate defence yet of his strategy of trying to contain Islamic State extremists rather than treating them as a conventional enemy.

“It’s best that we don’t shoot first and aim later,” said the US president during an intense press conference at the G20 summit in Turkey that saw reporters urging him to “take out these bastards”.

Pressure has been mounting among American politicians for a more robust military intervention against Isis in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Paris on Friday.

WNU Editor: I can understand President Obama's position on not committing U.S. ground forces to Syria .... a deployment that would (for all intents and purposes) be a ground invasion. There is no end-game to such an involvement, the financial costs will be high, and the casualties from such a conflict will be even higher. There is also (currently) no will among the U.S. public to get involved in another war in the Middle East .... and if there is another U.S. war of choice in a place like Syria or Iraq without the case being made .... the political party responsible for such an act will pay dearly at the polls ..... a fact that I am sure President Obama is aware of. But as the leader of the U.S. he does have a responsibility to present a strategy and a plan to the American public on what the U.S. should do, what are our objectives, and what is the commitment necessary to achieve these goals. This has not been done in the current conflict .... and the strategy that the White House likes to always talk about .... especially in the past year .... has been far too little, far too late, contradictory and confusing, with results that are dubious at best. I personally find this very disappointing. U.S. Presidents have always been faced with choices that are lose - lose .... and this is one of those cases. But this is where leadership and the pursuit of the common good with a strategic view of the future is more important than one's legacy .... that if there ever was a case where a new policy .... a new approach ..... a new vision was necessary .... this is it. Unfortunately .... I doubt that it will come from this President, and when I look at the current crop of Presidential candidates in 2016 .... doubly so.