The Syria withdrawal and Pentagon spin: When 'plan' and 'decisions' don't mean anything

Pentagon Run-Down

Should your friend and humble Pentagon correspondent live for another 50 years, you can expect to read a Pentagon Run-Down in 2069 about how many U.S. troops President George P. Bush III plans to leave in Syria. (Assuming, of course, that Joe Biden doesn't run in 2068.)

That's because current President Donald Trump had vowed to pull all U.S. troops from Syria back in December, but since then has agreed to leave some U.S. service members there. The White House initially said about 200 U.S. troops would remain in Syria, but government officials have since pegged the number at several hundred.

Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that up to 1,000 U.S. troops could make up the residual force in Syria. The Pentagon pushed back on that story unusually hard, presumably because defense officials are terrified that Trump will think the military is trying to force him to commit more troops to Syria.

Well, your friend and humble narrator is not in the business of protecting the president from news that might upset him, so let's take a look at how DoD can parse words.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the Wall Street Journal story "factually inaccurate."

That sounds pretty definitive, but keep in mind that Dunford recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee that in general, the strategic situation in Afghanistan has not changed since last year and he is "cautiously optimistic" about U.S. negotiations with the Taliban. (Afghanistan's national security advisor is somewhat less optimistic.)

Regarding the figure of 1,000 troops cited by the Wall Street Journal, Dunford said, "There has been no change to the plan announced in February and we continue to implement the president's direction to draw down U.S. forces to a residual presence."

The key word here is "plan." If the plan has not yet been finalized, it is factually accurate to say that it has not been changed. In other words, nothing is official until everything has been finalized; and a U.S. official confirmed to Task & Purpose that the military has not made any concrete decisions about how many troops will remain in Syria.

To your aged Pentagon reporter, Dunford's choice of words sounds a lot like the how the Obama administration's responded when the Associated Press first reported in October 2011 that the White House had abandoned efforts to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government to keep U.S. troops there.

Both the White House and Pentagon denied the AP story, claiming that negotiations with the Iraqis were ongoing and no final decision on the U.S. troop presence had been reached. While technically correct, the Obama administration's responses hid the fact that the AP story was accurate. Less than a week later, Obama announced that all U.S. troops in Iraq would be home before the end of 2011. (Most transparent administration ever.)

The words "plan" and "planning" also allow government officials to play all sorts of rhetorical games. When President George W. Bush told a reporter in April 2002 that there were no plans to attack Iraq on his desk, he meant that the war plans being developed were literally not sitting on his desk at that particular moment, as author Bob Woodward noted in his 2004 book "Plan of Attack."

Another word that gives the Pentagon and White House a lot of wiggle room is "decision." Officials will often bat away questions by saying something to the effect of, "no decisions have been made." What that really means is, "no announcements have been made."

Two weeks before the Iraq war began, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters that Bush had not yet decided whether to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"The president of the United States has not made a decision to do this," Rumsfeld said at a March 5, 2003 Pentagon news briefing. "But I think it's fair to say that one would expect a great deal of planning and thought to be going into that."

That same day, the Pentagon held a background briefing for reporters about how the military takes collateral damage when it selects which targets to strike – undercutting the argument that war was not a foregone conclusion at that point.

As your friend and humble narrator reads the Pentagon tea leaves, the size of the U.S. residual force in Syria could very well be bigger than what defense officials have said so far. The reason we don't know yet is the White House and Pentagon are very good at waging war on the English language. Officials use words that no longer have meaning.

Ultimately, the DoD's goal seems to be trying to avoid angering President Trump — since the U.S. military is one tweet away from a total withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan.

Make sure you are subscribed to the Pentagon Run-Down for all the latest news.

SEE ALSO: Exclusive: The Insider Attack In Syria That The Pentagon Denies Ever Happened

WATCH NEXT: Russian Mercenaries Describe Their Defeat In Syria

Jeff Schogol covers the Pentagon for Task & Purpose. He has covered the military for 13 years and embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Haiti. Prior to joining T&P, he covered the Marine Corps and Air Force at Military Times. Comments or thoughts to share? Send them to Jeff Schogol via email at or direct message @JeffSchogol on Twitter.
The San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship USS Arlington. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Chris Roys)

The Navy is investigating reports that a female Marine discovered a hidden camera in one of the women's restrooms aboard the USS Arlington, an amphibious transport dock that's currently on at port in Greece, NBC News originally reported.

Read More Show Less
The sun sets behind a C-17 Globemaster III at Joint Base Balad, Iraq, as Soldiers wait in line to board Nov. 17, 2008. (Air Force/Tech Sgt. Erik Gudmundson)

Today, an American service member died in a "non-combat incident" in Ninawa Province, Iraq according to a statement by Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State.

Read More Show Less

First came the explosion. Then, the cover-up.

"I held one [sailor] in my hands as he passed. He died in my arms."

USS Iowa on April 19, 1989. (Wikipedia Commons)

It's been 30 years since an explosion inside the number two gun turret on the USS Iowa killed 47 American sailors, but for Mike Carr, it still feels like yesterday.

"I knew all 47 guys inside that turret because as part of the ship's policy we had rotated between all three turrets," Carr, who served as a gunner's mate in the Iowa's aft 16-inch turret, told Task & Purpose. "We all knew each other rather intimately."

On April 19, 1989, the day of the blast, the ship was preparing for live-fire training at Vieques, Puerto Rico Naval Training Range.

Carr was wearing headphones that allowed him to hear what the crews in the other turrets were saying.

"At 10 minutes to 10 a.m., somebody came over the phones and said, 'We're having a problem, Turret 2, center gun,'" Carr recalled. "Then approximately two minutes later, I recognized Senior Chief [Reginald] Ziegler, who was the chief in charge of Turret 2, yell into the phones: 'Fire, fire, fire! Fire in center gun, turret 2. Trying to contain it.'"

Then came the blast, which was so strong that it ripped the headphones right off Carr's head.

Read More Show Less

Barracks to business: Hiring veterans has never been easier

Organizations offer training, certifications, networking to connect veterans, businesses

Jason Sutton

As a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and a newly minted second lieutenant, I felt well-prepared to tackle the challenges facing a junior field artillery officer in the U.S. Army. When the time came to leave the Army, however, I was much less prepared to make the transition into the yet-unknown civilian sector.

One of the primary issues facing veterans after we transition is that we lack the same sense of purpose and mission that we had with our military careers. Today, more than ever, our service members volunteer to put themselves in harm's way. They are defending our freedom across the globe and should be recognized as our country's true heroes. It's critical that employers educate veterans and provide viable options so we can make informed decisions about the rest of our lives.

Read More Show Less
Maj. Gen. David Furness

The two-star general in charge of the roughly 15,000-strong 2nd Marine Division has turned micromanagement into an art form with a new policy letter ordering his Marines and sailors to cut their hair, shave their faces, and adhere to a daily schedule that he has prescribed.

In his "Policy Letter 5-19," Maj. Gen. David Furness lamented that he has noticed "a significant decline in the basic discipline" of troops he's come in contact with in the division area, which has led him to "FIX IT immediately," instead of relying on the thousands of commissioned and non-commissioned officers below him to carry out his orders.

Read More Show Less