I'm guessing that this is her attempt at foreign policy triangulation. All I want to know is, where's the Dramamine?
On the one hand, she depicts herself as a Syria hawk (for her, of course):
Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Thursday urged a more aggressive approach to fighting Islamic State militants than Barack Obama has pursued, saying an intensified air campaign is needed combined with ground forces....
She said it is time for a "new phase" in the fight against [the] Islamic State: A more effective U.S.-led air campaign that will "have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory."
The effort will require an "intelligence surge," she said, involving more Arabic speakers with expertise in the area and technical assets. There also should be no-fly zones over Syria and safe zones for people fleeing the violence, she added.
"Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS, but to defeat and destroy ISIS," said [Mrs.] Clinton, using an acronym to describe [the] Islamic State. [emphases added]
Sounds pretty testicular, doesn't she? "Ground forces," "taking back territory," "defeat and destroy ISIS". Not much to disagree or find fault with, other than the notion of no-fly zones, since, as far as I know, ISIS doesn't have an air force, so the only form a "no-fly zone" could take is territory over which our own combat aircraft were not permitted to fly. If she means the Russians, don't worry, because she doesn't mean the Russians.
But it does beg the question of the identity of the ground forces in question. The only "local forces" that have been remotely effective against ISIS have been the Kurds, but the Turks and Iraqis - well, the Turks, anyway, since Iraq doesn't functionally exist anymore - hate the Kurds, don't want them carving their own state out of Turkish territory (in part), and aren't exactly aiding them against al-Baghdadi's boys. And, of course, Obama has been cutting their balls off as well.
Which means, as a practical matter, that while the Kurds are certainly welcome in any "coalition" that Her Nib could rebuild after O's flew the coop in exasperation, the "ground forces," as always, will have to be overwhelmingly American if "territory is to be taken back" and ISIS is to be "defeated and destroyed". If she is serious about those objectives, that is what she must call for. Is she and will she?
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Thursday to keep American troops out of Syria, saying in a sweeping foreign policy address she would resist sending forces to fight Islamic State militants even if there were an attack within the U.S. [emphasis added]
Yeah, that'll go over like gangbusters outside the lunatic left. Remember this newspaper front page from 9/11/01?
The San Francisco Examiner. In the aftermath of massive jihadist strikes in the United States. With the entire country actually unified in wanting to get the "BASTARDS!" by any means necessary. If anybody thinks Hillary could resist that kind of public pressure, you're not thinking, because she couldn't - though that would mean the sort of half-assed half-measures that would lead to a result not dissimilar from the one O's phony war against ISIS has produced. Because leftwingnut Democrats don't know how to fight wars other than to lose them.
And if she did pull an Obama and refused to retaliate....well, she's promising that now when it's still possible to bury her, and for the Dems not to make the mistake of nominating her in the first place. Weekend Bernie they can trust to surrender to ISIS without conditions.
Offering a detailed assessment of the conflict in Syria, the Democrat presidential candidate said America must lead the effort to fight against IS but called on Arab nations to supply much of the military force on the ground.
"Lead" from behind, in other words. Again.
During a question-and-answer session, [Mrs.] Clinton was asked if the pressure to send in U.S. ground troops to Syria would be "unstoppable" if another terror attack were to occur in the U.S.
"It would certainly grow, but I think it would be a mistake," she said, noting her support for sending in more U.S. special forces, empowering U.S. trainers in Iraq and the use of an air coalition in the region. "Right now we need to keep the pressure on the people on the ground and get them to change their priorities and work together." [emphasis added]
How she would accomplish that without tens of thousands of American troops on the ground with them to exert the leverage on them to get them to change their priorities and work together - which is what it took to pacify Iraq - is a question she didn't bother to answer because, of course, nobody asked it of her. But from what she did say, it sounds indistinguishable from what Barack Obama has been doing for the past year-plus, which everybody has finally concluded is a miserable failure. Other than her doubling down on it while 'roiding up the muscular adjectives in her mendacious vocabulary, which will gain her no propaganda leg-up since she bears the stigma of having been The One's Commissar of State that helped midwife the Islamic State's rise to begin with.
As I say, lotsa luck on selling more of the disastrous status quo to a literally besieged electorate next year, your majesty. Bill could have put it over, but you? Not a chance.
UPDATE: Oh, yes, she had to check off this suicidally delusional box:
One hundred and eighty degrees the opposite of the truth. That's like Franklin Delano Roosevelt referring to the Nazis as peaceful and tolerant people with a conspicuous Zionist streak. But it's what the Nutroots want to hear, and she's in a desperate last-ditch battle to fend off the authentic communist Bernie Sanders for the Donk nomination, so that's what she's got to say.
I'd ask whether she actually believes this nonsense, but I think she'd believe anything - even switch party registrations - if it would get her the power after which she lusts and which she's been denied her entire life. Which is precisely why it must be denied to her one more time. That and preserving the lives of three hundred million Americans, that is.