Sometimes it’s really hard to tell what the Pentagon spokesman is saying, especially when he’s discussing the shadowy role U.S. special operations forces are playing in Syria.
The ostensible reason for the obfuscation is understandable: security and force protection. The less anyone knows about what the elite U.S. commandos are doing, and where they are doing it, the easier it is for them to do their job.
But that can also lead to a lot of confusion. Are U.S. troops fighting the Islamic State in Syria? Are they in danger? Are they on the front lines, behind the front lines, or nowhere near the front lines? Are they calling in airstrikes? Providing tactical advice? Weapons? What exactly are they up to?
What follows is a deconstruction of Monday’s briefing from Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook, and a translation from Pentagonese to English.
Q: What is the mission of the 250 additional American special operations forces being sent to Syria?
Cook: One of the main goals here is as much about meeting people on the ground. Before we had any forces in Syria, our picture of the country, quite honestly, was limited. Those forces on the ground have expanded our ability to make contacts and to meet the forces on the ground that we didn’t even know about.
Translation: The U.S. commandos are basically on a recruiting-and-vetting mission. Unlike in Iraq, where the U.S. knows the bad guys from the not-so-bad guys, Syria is a mess of conflicting and shifting loyalties. The big challenge is figuring out who can be trusted.
Q: What happens when they find a group of fighters worth backing?
Cook: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals, but the goal has always been those forces that have shown success in a transactional way, that we are willing to provide more material support for them.
Translation: If the fighters have shown they can kick some Islamic State butt, the U.S. is willing to provide guns, ammo, supplies and even air cover.
Q: How do we know they won’t use those weapons against us, or our friends?
Cook: [O]ne of the goals of that program is to identify leaders who are worthy of that kind of support, and to be able to work out the logistical hurdles, communication hurdles.
Translation: This is why the special operations forces have to be on the ground. They have to be able to look the local leaders in the eye, stare them down, cut through the battlefield braggadocio, and make clear that if we help them, they had better take the fight to the Islamic State.
Q: Does this advise-and-assist role mean U.S. troops are in combat?
Cook: The idea is that they will not be engaged in direct combat, they will not be on the front lines. They will be providing support to those local forces that are taking the fight to ISIL and — but they’re in harm’s way, that — we should be crystal clear about that, and they will be able to defend themselves if they come under fire.
Translation: Yes, they are in combat. We just don’t like to say that. We’ve already taken casualties “behind” the front lines. And anytime someone fires at you, and you fire back, you’re in combat. But it’s true it’s not as dangerous as taking the lead in offensive operations. Still, being in combat is like being pregnant. You either are or you’re not. We are.
Q: So are the U.S. special operations forces going to be based in Syria?
Cook: I’m not going to say whether or not they’re all going to be on the ground at any particular time. Again, some of these people are not necessarily special operators. You’re talking about medical personnel, logistical personnel to try and provide support to those people.
Translation: We don’t have any permanent bases in Syria, like we do in Iraq, so some of these folks will stay back in Irbil, Iraq, and move in and out of the neighboring Syria.
Q: Is this mission creep?
Cook: We are building on what is working and — both in Syria and Iraq. We have seen the momentum in recent weeks, we have seen what has been successful and these actions, these accelerants reflect decisions made based on success on the ground. We want to build on that success.
Translation: Yes, its mission creep. But it’s very slow mission creep. The Pentagon insists as long as it’s just lighting a fire under local forces, motivating them, but not leading them, it won’t result in the dreaded quagmire.
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior national security writer, and has covered the U.S. military since 1992.
