a humanitarian mission? it doesn t make sense. we went in and bombed a sovereign nation, used military power which we articulated what we weren t going to do before we went in. we weren t going to depose gadhafi, weren t going to stay long, weren t going to stay in command. the question is if weal felt that way why did we intercede in the first place? you always hear about the end game and sometimes people in the pentagon are accused of not knowing exactly what the end game will be. in this case the end game being we are not continuing with combat operations but the big picture end game, is this leading to something palatable for americans? well, i just sort of caution. end games are political objectives. they are not military tactics like an air cap or a set of ground strikes. the question is what were our political objectives?
powers, regional powers, extra regional powers like russia and the united states on the battlefield there are simply so many different strategies and different powers that are trying to see their own plans realized on the ground in syria, but russia it s important to arer that russia does not control the syrian government. they are their most important great power guarantor. iran is absolutely critical for syria on the ground but russia cannot control what the syrian government is doing. we have seen that as multiple cease-fires have fallen apart in syria over the last years. americans have little appetite for wars in the middle east. at this point, given that america is good at getting into them and bad at getting out, should we be thinking about exit strategy, end games, what success looks like in syria? you know, president trump has laid out earlier this month and last month his desire to not become more involved in middle eastern conflicts and to let
outside action. i think our strategy in syria as you know, our priority is first the defeat of isis. it s through that political process that we believe the syrian people will ultimately be able to decide the fate of bashar al assad. reporter: sean spicer seemed to acknowledge both end games. i can t imagine a stable and peaceful syria where assad is in power. i think we all recognize that that happens and there can be a multi pronged approach. we are ensuring that isis is contained and there s a deescalation of the proliferation of chemical weapons and creating the environment for a change in leadership. reporter: tillerson has blamed russia for bearing responsibility in the chemical attack. a recent terrible chemical weapons attack in large measure