| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| DOD brass long urged caution on Syria |
| 2013-06-17 |
| The White House’s plan to step up American involvement in Syria might be the very thing its top military commanders has been warning against for months — a foray into a long, messy war. In hearings, speeches and interviews, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey have been deeply skeptical every time they’ve been asked about potential U.S. involvement in Syria. What kind of weapons would the United States provide to the rebels and what happens if they fall into the wrong hands? Will the U.S. and its allies establish a no-fly zone and if so, how robust would it be? Would U.S. intervention just create a proxy war in the region? Since the White House announced Thursday that the United States would begin providing lethal aid to the rebels but did not specify any details for military operations, military leaders remain in planning mode. Defense officials told POLITICO on Friday that they have a wide range of options for military action in Syria, and President Barack Obama has not asked the Pentagon for any specific plan yet. The bottom line, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said is that although military commanders will always execute their orders, there’s a reason the top brass — from the O-6 colonels and captains to their generals and admirals — has been so reluctant to get involved. “I’ve never spoken to any at the O-5 level or above who thinks intervening in Syria is a good idea,” Zenko said. “But, yes, they’ll develop options forever until the president authorizes them to execute one of them, and then they will, faithfully.” The administration may be listening: The no-fly zone is one option the White House seems to be willing to discard — officials downplayed it both in briefings on Thursday and Friday. “People need to understand that a no-fly zone is not some type of silver bullet,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters at a briefing. “We haven’t ruled out options, but I think people need to understand … they don’t solve the problem necessarily.” Separately U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, set to become Obama’s national security adviser, also downplayed a no-fly zone to reporters at the United Nations. Gen. Dempsey also has said that the Syrian rebels already have plenty of weapons from their other sponsors, raising a question about how much a difference American assistance might make. In April, Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed asked Dempsey specifically whether the rebels’ access to weapons had been a “decisive issue” in the civil war. “No, not in my military judgment,” Dempsey answered. “There is no shortage of arms in Syria.” And don’t expect the Syrians to take an intervention lying down, Dempsey warned. “I have to assume, as the military member with responsibility for these kind of activities, that the potential adversary isn’t just going to sit back and allow us to impose our will on them, that they could in fact take exception … and act outside of their borders with long-range rockets and missiles and artillery and even asymmetrical threats,” he said. In other words, Syria could lash out and escalate the war whether the U.S. was prepared or not. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #6 Maybe there is some sort of coordination here. Russia will back Syria and we will back the Rebels - but neither side will back their side enough to actually win - only prolong the fighting allow them to pile up the carnage and lance the boil. Nah! Biden would have blabbed it all over the networks by now to show how 'involved' he is.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2013-06-17 18:13 |
| #5 The Zero rushes in, where heroes fear to tread. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-06-17 18:04 |
| #4 I really don't see a down-side to letting them slaughter each other. Sorry. |
| Posted by: Muggsey Mussolini 2013-06-17 11:00 |
| #3 No Ship, certainly not. But I am praying we don't get involved in another senseless, middle eastern cock-up. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-17 04:11 |
| #2 I knew you weren't a Chaplain. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-06-17 04:02 |
| #1 So-called NO FLY ZONE aircraft must have an defensive capability. Permitting one's aircraft to be fired upon [either from the air or ground] with impunity is very dangerous. During Operations North and Southern Watch in Iraq, then MG Kieth Alexander [yes, same guy] was the Central Command J2 at Prince Sultan Air Base, SA. Alexander had much to do with the identification and neutralization of Iraqi anti-aircraft sites and radars which were targeted and destroyed. His actions and those of the USAF No-Fly Zone pilots paid big dividends for the second Gulf War. Of course our friends and staunch allies the Turks insisted planes fired upon return fire immediately vs a Northern Watch follow-on planned attack from Insirlik. Southern Watch flyers simply poured on the gas and returned to Prince Sultan Air Base [PSAB], where a post mission follow-on strike would be planned and executed. SA had no such qualms about strike missions out of PSAB. It got so bad for the Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries, that gunners would let the Allied aircraft pass by... fire a few obligatory rounds for their officers, then beat feet away from their Russian made radars vans and guns as quickly as possible. I can remember one very tense Video Tele-Conference [VTC] where Alexander dressed down a senior USAF officer quite severely for failing to execute a counterstrike to Alexander's liking. Not a pleasant morning for that officer I assure you. The conduct of No Fly Zones can be hazardous. April 14th, 1994 was one very sad day. Also, a very tense time for UN inspection teams in Iraq, I assure you. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-06-17 03:40 |