The U.S. military’s head spokesman for operations in Iraq and Syria has issued a full apology for accidentally retweeting a Twitter post that accused Turkish troops of trying to kill civilians in northern Syria.
The tweet showed U.S. troops in an M-ATV next to little children wearing backpacks with the following text: “My favorite photo of the week. US Special Forces (Green Berets) patrolling the Rojava-Turkey border after terrorist Turkish army snipers targeted Rojavan civilians, killing a little girl walking home from school. These children are safe, protected by Green Berets.”
From the official Operation Inherent Resolve account, Army Col. Sean Ryan apologized to Turkey: “In my official capacity, I accidentally shared content that was insulting to our Coalition partner Turkey, a key partner in the mission to defeat ISIS. I meant no disrespect. We have a duty to mutual security, and we are committed to defeating ISIS. Please accept my apology.”
Turkey has helped the U.S. military fight ISIS but is also gravely concerned about Kurds carving out an enclave on its border with Syria. In January, Turkey invaded norther Syrian to drive Kurdish fighters out of the town of Afrin, bringing the Syrian Democratic Forces’ offensive against ISIS to a halt. The two sides have traded fire several times since then.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Rob Manning deferred questions about Trump and Erdoğan’s conversation last week to the White House.
Manning had previously said that any new Turkish military operation in northeastern Syria where U.S. troops are working with Syrian Democratic Forces would be “unacceptable.” But on Monday, the Pentagon had a more diplomatic response to Erdoğan's latest comments.
“The United States and Turkey are coordinating actively on all issues affecting both Turkish security and the situation in Northeast Syria, where US forces are present in the campaign to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. US troops are in Syria for the mission of ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS,” said fellow Pentagon spokesman Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson.
“We have made significant progress recently in the campaign, but the job is not yet done,” he continued.
“President Trump and President Erdogan discussed these issues in their call last week, as did Secretary Pompeo and Foreign Minister Cavusoglu in a separate call. Both our countries remain focused on coordinating to counter the threats that terror poses to Turkey, the region, and beyond. We believe we are making progress with Turkey on these issues.”
Editor's Note: The following story highlights a veteran atIron Mountain. Committed to including talented members of the military community in its workplace, Iron Mountain is a client of Hirepurpose, a Task & Purpose sister company. Learn more here.
Jackie Melendrez couldn't be prouder of her husband, her sons, and the fact that she works for the trucking company Iron Mountain. This regional router has been a Mountaineer since 2017, and says the support she receives as a military spouse and mother is unparalleled.
A Navy SEAL combat medic called as a witness in the trial of Chief Eddie Gallagher claims that it was he, not Gallagher, who was responsible for the death of the ISIS prisoner in Iraq, dealing a massive blow to the U.S. government's case against Gallagher.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A 40-foot-tall (12 meters) cross-shaped war memorial standing on public land in Maryland does not constitute government endorsement of religion, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that leaves unanswered questions about the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.
The justices were divided on many of the legal issues but the vote was 7-2 to overturn a lower court ruling that had declared the so-called Peace Cross in Bladensburg unconstitutional in a legal challenge mounted by the American Humanist Association, a group that advocates for secular governance. The concrete cross was erected in 1925 as a memorial to troops killed in World War One.
The ruling made it clear that a long-standing monument in the shape of a Christian cross on public land was permissible but the justices were divided over whether other types of religious displays and symbols on government property would be allowed. Those issues are likely to come before the court in future cases.