Obama’s Syria caution reflects US division over resort to force
search
Analysis

Obama’s Syria caution reflects US division over resort to force

Response to likely use of chemical weapons shows lack of agreement in Washington over aggressive military intervention

In this citizen journalism image provided by Aleppo Media Center AMC which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, Syrian girls paint their faces with colors of the Syrian revolutionary flag during a fesitval, in Aleppo, Syria, Wednesday March 20, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Aleppo Media Center)
In this citizen journalism image provided by Aleppo Media Center AMC which has been authenticated based on its contents and other AP reporting, Syrian girls paint their faces with colors of the Syrian revolutionary flag during a fesitval, in Aleppo, Syria, Wednesday March 20, 2013 (photo credit: AP/Aleppo Media Center)

WASHINGTON (AP) — US President Barack Obama’s cautious response to Syria’s likely use of chemical weapons reflects a lack of agreement in Washington over aggressive military intervention, but lawmakers in both parties fear that inaction could embolden not only Syrian President Bashar Assad but also US foes as well.

The White House cautiously acknowledged that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, most likely the agent sarin, in the two-year civil war that has killed more than 70,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands more.

Obama has declared that the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” for a major military response, but the administration made clear Friday that even a quick strike wasn’t imminent as they try to corroborate the information.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the prospect of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is “gravely serious,” but he insisted the administration needed more evidence to bolster its intelligence assessments.

“This is not an airtight case,” he said. “We do have some evidence, but we need to build on that.”

Emerging from a closed-door briefing with Secretary of State John Kerry in Congress, House Republicans and Democrats expressed uncertainty about the appropriate next step as the Obama administration considers limited military options.

No lawmaker pressed for a US military invasion after more than 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“It is such a muddled picture,” said Rep. Hal Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. “I think probably we should be asking the UN to be involved. I think perhaps that’s in the making.”

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee, was among many lawmakers who called for a cautious approach to Syria even as they acknowledged the seriousness of the situation.

“We want to do everything we can to avoid putting boots on the ground,” he told reporters. The US should work with other countries to stabilize Syria and ensure its chemical weapons are kept out of the hands of terrorist groups, he said.

“I don’t think that we, just as the United States, want to go in to another war,” Ruppersberger said.

Obama’s vow that Syria’s use of chemical weapons would elicit a strong response and the administration’s latest caution raise questions about Obama’s definition of a red line. The US credibility and international authority are on the line in the administration’s handling of Syria, and the message it sends to Assad and rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran.

“There’s no question that when the United States takes a position that this crosses a line that our failure to respond has implications,” said Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat and a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I think the president was saying the use of chemical weapons is a game changer. I think most people agree with that. So that if we in fact determine that chemical weapons were used, I think the expectation is that we and the coalition and others take some action.”

Rep. John Mica, a Republican, wondered whether the red line is “turning into a pink line.”

In Syria, officials rejected the US intelligence assessment and denied that it had used chemical weapons.

Pressed on the response, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said: “If the regime has nothing to hide, they should let the UN investigators in immediately so we can get to the bottom of this.”

The White House faces a limited choice of military options to help the rebels oust 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 defense system far more robust than what the US and its allies overwhelmed in Libya two years ago.

The next move on Syria was high on the agenda for Obama’s 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 it’s important for the administration to look for ways to up the military pressure on Assad,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat and 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 organization, and the administration’s 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 Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, is a “lot harder that it was before.”

“We’ve 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. There’s 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 Sen. John McCain, a Republican, have called for the U.S. 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 Syria’s air defenses. According to a report by the Institute for the Study of War, Syria’s largely Soviet-era air defense system includes as many as 300 mobile surface-to-air missile systems and defense 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 U.S. has taken only minimal military steps so far, limiting U.S. assistance to nonlethal aid, including military-style equipment such as body armor and night vision goggles.

The US has deployed about 200 troops to Jordan to assist that country’s military, and participated in NATO’s placement of Patriot missile batteries in Turkey near the border to protect against an attack from 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 they’ve been moving it and the number of sites is quite numerous,” Dempsey said.

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.

read more:
less
comments
more