UmarJustice
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 0
WASHINGTON/LONDON - The White House disclosure that the Syrian government has twice used chemical weapons still leaves the Obama administration stuck with a limited choice of military options to help the rebels oust President Bashar Assad.
Arming the rebels runs smack into the reality that a military group fighting alongside them has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. Establishing a no-fly zone poses a significant challenge as Syria possesses an air defence system far more robust than what the US and its allies overwhelmed in Libya two years ago.
President Barack Obama had declared that the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons in the two-year civil war would be game changer that would cross a red line for a major military response, but the White House made clear Thursday that even a quick strike wasnt imminent.
Reflecting a strong degree of caution, the White House said the intelligence community assessed with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons on a small scale. The White House said in a letter to two senators that the chain of custody was unclear and that the determination was based on physiological samples.
The information had been known to the administration and some members of Congress for weeks despite public pronouncements from the White House. The revelation on Thursday strengthened proponents of aggressive military action, who challenged the administration to act and warned that going wobbly would embolden Assad. Yet it also underscored the difficulties of any step for war-weary lawmakers horrified by a conflict that has killed an estimated 70,000 but guarded about US involvement in a Mideast war. Theres no easy choice here, said Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, a member of the Armed Services Committee. All the alternatives are flawed. Its just finding the least flawed among them that will get Assad out.
British Prime Minister David Cameron also said on Friday that growing evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime was extremely serious but he too said the response would likely be political rather than military.
This is extremely serious. And I think what President Obama said was absolutely right, that this should form for the international community a red line for us to do more, Cameron told the BBC. Ive always been keen for us to do more.
The question is how we step up the pressure. In my view what we need to do and were doing some of this already is shape that opposition, work with them, train them, mentor them, help them so we put the pressure on the regime and so we can bring this to an end.
Asked whether that would mean putting British troops on the ground in Syria, Cameron said: I dont want to see that and I dont think that is likely to happen. But I think we can step up the pressure on the regime, work with our partners and work with the opposition in order to bring about the right outcome.
The next move on Syria was high on the agenda for Obamas meeting Friday with King Abdullah II of Jordan, as the US ally has struggled with the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees escaping the Syrian violence. Vice President Joe Biden and Abdullah discussed the best path to a peaceful, democratic post-Assad Syria where moderates are empowered on Thursday. I think its important for the administration to look for ways to up the military pressure on Assad, said Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. One of the most powerful of the rebel groups in Syria is Jabhat al-Nusra, which recently declared its affiliation with al-Qaeda. Last December, the State Department designated the group a terrorist organisation, and the administrations opposition to directly arming the Syrian opposition stems from concerns about the weapons ending up in the hands of Islamic extremists.
Arming the rebels, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, is a lot harder that it was before. Weve gotten to the point now where the opposition has been affected by the radicals, Graham said in an interview. Right weapons in right hands is the goal. The second war is coming. I think we can arm the right people with the right weapons. Theres a risk there, but the risk of letting this go and chemical weapons falling into radical Islamists hands is the greatest risk.
Several lawmakers, including Republican Sen. John McCain, have called for the US to create a narrow, safe zone inside Syria, along its border with Turkey.
Either a safe zone or a no-fly zone would require neutralizing Syrias air defences. According to a report by the Institute for the Study of War, Syrias largely Soviet-era air defence system includes as many as 300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems and defence systems, and more than 600 static missile launchers and sites.
You can establish it (safe zone) by taking out their aircraft on the ground with cruise missiles and using the Patriot (missile) also. No American manned aircraft in danger, McCain said. The US has taken only minimal military steps so far, limiting US assistance to nonlethal aid, including military-style equipment such as body armour and night vision goggles.
The US has deployed about 200 troops to Jordan to assist that countrys military, and participated in NATOs placement of Patriot missile batteries in Turkey near the border to protect against an attack from Syria. Its unclear, however, what arming the rebels or patrolling a no-fly zone over Syria would accomplish.
The options are all bad, says Aram Nerguizian, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Arming the opposition doesnt do anything regarding chemical weapons or solving proliferation concerns in Syria. Targeting a facility, he added, might send a message to the Assad regime. But it does little to address the larger direction of the civil war, which is tilting back toward government forces again after a counteroffensive.
Heres one thing you can do, argues Andrew Tabler at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in a similar vein. If they load this stuff into bombs or mix the stuff, we can hit it, he said, but agreed that wouldnt eliminate the larger stockpiles or address the larger context of a conflict that is destroying Syria.
In testimony to Congress last week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked whether he was confident that US forces could secure the chemical weapons caches within Syria. Not as I sit here today, simply because theyve been moving it and the number of sites is quite numerous, Dempsey said.
Tabler pointed to the Israeli attack earlier this year on a Syrian weapons convoy going to Hezbollah as an example of a possibly targeted US intervention. He said the question of arming the rebels should be looked at beyond chemical weapons use, considering the 200 Scud missiles that have been launched by Assads regime in the last five months and the governments ongoing escalation all over the place.
Even if US interests arent immediately affected, they could be over time. Syria isnt Vegas, Tabler said. What happens in Syria doesnt stay in Syria. Where do these chemical weapons all go?
US options limited on Syria despite weapons report
Arming the rebels runs smack into the reality that a military group fighting alongside them has pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. Establishing a no-fly zone poses a significant challenge as Syria possesses an air defence system far more robust than what the US and its allies overwhelmed in Libya two years ago.
President Barack Obama had declared that the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons in the two-year civil war would be game changer that would cross a red line for a major military response, but the White House made clear Thursday that even a quick strike wasnt imminent.
Reflecting a strong degree of caution, the White House said the intelligence community assessed with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons on a small scale. The White House said in a letter to two senators that the chain of custody was unclear and that the determination was based on physiological samples.
The information had been known to the administration and some members of Congress for weeks despite public pronouncements from the White House. The revelation on Thursday strengthened proponents of aggressive military action, who challenged the administration to act and warned that going wobbly would embolden Assad. Yet it also underscored the difficulties of any step for war-weary lawmakers horrified by a conflict that has killed an estimated 70,000 but guarded about US involvement in a Mideast war. Theres no easy choice here, said Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill, a member of the Armed Services Committee. All the alternatives are flawed. Its just finding the least flawed among them that will get Assad out.
British Prime Minister David Cameron also said on Friday that growing evidence of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime was extremely serious but he too said the response would likely be political rather than military.
This is extremely serious. And I think what President Obama said was absolutely right, that this should form for the international community a red line for us to do more, Cameron told the BBC. Ive always been keen for us to do more.
The question is how we step up the pressure. In my view what we need to do and were doing some of this already is shape that opposition, work with them, train them, mentor them, help them so we put the pressure on the regime and so we can bring this to an end.
Asked whether that would mean putting British troops on the ground in Syria, Cameron said: I dont want to see that and I dont think that is likely to happen. But I think we can step up the pressure on the regime, work with our partners and work with the opposition in order to bring about the right outcome.
The next move on Syria was high on the agenda for Obamas meeting Friday with King Abdullah II of Jordan, as the US ally has struggled with the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees escaping the Syrian violence. Vice President Joe Biden and Abdullah discussed the best path to a peaceful, democratic post-Assad Syria where moderates are empowered on Thursday. I think its important for the administration to look for ways to up the military pressure on Assad, said Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. One of the most powerful of the rebel groups in Syria is Jabhat al-Nusra, which recently declared its affiliation with al-Qaeda. Last December, the State Department designated the group a terrorist organisation, and the administrations opposition to directly arming the Syrian opposition stems from concerns about the weapons ending up in the hands of Islamic extremists.
Arming the rebels, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, is a lot harder that it was before. Weve gotten to the point now where the opposition has been affected by the radicals, Graham said in an interview. Right weapons in right hands is the goal. The second war is coming. I think we can arm the right people with the right weapons. Theres a risk there, but the risk of letting this go and chemical weapons falling into radical Islamists hands is the greatest risk.
Several lawmakers, including Republican Sen. John McCain, have called for the US to create a narrow, safe zone inside Syria, along its border with Turkey.
Either a safe zone or a no-fly zone would require neutralizing Syrias air defences. According to a report by the Institute for the Study of War, Syrias largely Soviet-era air defence system includes as many as 300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems and defence systems, and more than 600 static missile launchers and sites.
You can establish it (safe zone) by taking out their aircraft on the ground with cruise missiles and using the Patriot (missile) also. No American manned aircraft in danger, McCain said. The US has taken only minimal military steps so far, limiting US assistance to nonlethal aid, including military-style equipment such as body armour and night vision goggles.
The US has deployed about 200 troops to Jordan to assist that countrys military, and participated in NATOs placement of Patriot missile batteries in Turkey near the border to protect against an attack from Syria. Its unclear, however, what arming the rebels or patrolling a no-fly zone over Syria would accomplish.
The options are all bad, says Aram Nerguizian, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Arming the opposition doesnt do anything regarding chemical weapons or solving proliferation concerns in Syria. Targeting a facility, he added, might send a message to the Assad regime. But it does little to address the larger direction of the civil war, which is tilting back toward government forces again after a counteroffensive.
Heres one thing you can do, argues Andrew Tabler at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in a similar vein. If they load this stuff into bombs or mix the stuff, we can hit it, he said, but agreed that wouldnt eliminate the larger stockpiles or address the larger context of a conflict that is destroying Syria.
In testimony to Congress last week, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked whether he was confident that US forces could secure the chemical weapons caches within Syria. Not as I sit here today, simply because theyve been moving it and the number of sites is quite numerous, Dempsey said.
Tabler pointed to the Israeli attack earlier this year on a Syrian weapons convoy going to Hezbollah as an example of a possibly targeted US intervention. He said the question of arming the rebels should be looked at beyond chemical weapons use, considering the 200 Scud missiles that have been launched by Assads regime in the last five months and the governments ongoing escalation all over the place.
Even if US interests arent immediately affected, they could be over time. Syria isnt Vegas, Tabler said. What happens in Syria doesnt stay in Syria. Where do these chemical weapons all go?
US options limited on Syria despite weapons report
