Report: U.S. reviewing military options in Syria to end conflict

[News_Editor]

Report: U.S. reviewing military options in Syria to end conflict

2012-02-08 23:34:58 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- The U.S. government has begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities in Syria in the event U.S. President Barack Obama calls for them, senior administration officials told CNN on late Tuesday.

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the media, said the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command are looking into military options in Syria to end the ongoing crackdown. The officials emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.

"Before we start talking about military options, we very much want to ensure that we have exhausted all the political, economic and diplomatic means at our disposal," U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice told CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday. Obama has also said he believes it is possible to end the conflict without outside military intervention.

It is the first time U.S. officials have confirmed that the Pentagon is looking into military intervention in Syria, although such a review is not unusual. "The Pentagon is closely monitoring developments in Syria. It wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't put some ideas on the table," one of the officials told CNN. "But absolutely no decisions have been made on military support for Syria."

There have been increasing calls for military intervention as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently stepped up his bloody crackdown against the popular uprising. Earlier this week, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the United States to help arm the rebels against the Assad government.

Responding to McCain's statement, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said arming the rebels is not the answer to end the conflict. "As the President himself made absolutely clear [..], we don't think more arms into Syria is the answer," she said. "We think the answer is to get to a national democratic dialogue, for the violence to stop, for the regime's tanks to come out of the cities, and then for monitors to be able to go back in."

Syria has been part of the wider Arab Spring movement which began in early 2011 and has been riddled by violence ever since. Pro-democracy demonstrations have spread across the country since mid-March, resulting in a fierce government crackdown which has left more than 7,000 people killed.

The Syrian government has repeatedly claimed that violent acts against protesters have been carried out by 'terrorists dressed as soldiers,' although international observers have rejected these claims. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad previously admitted that mistakes were made, but claimed protesters were no longer being targeted.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-02-08

[coma]

Earlier this week, U.S. Senator John McCain called for the United States to help arm the rebels against the Assad government.

Is this guy for real ? I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises. Let's throw a few more weapons to the enemy!!!

You sure are a bit of a legend John but of this one you have got it wrong.

[Credo]

I have nothing against McCain bringing up the option of helping to arm the protesters, but I hope the idea is not used unless absolutely necessary.

In this situation, it's best for the US to keep a safe distance and work toward diplomatic resolution of the conflict. I am afraid that the connections between Syrian and Iran would make any military action by the US far too risky.

As far as calling them rebels or terrorists. I don't see too much that would warrant a terrorist label for the vast majority of the protestors. They are being attacked by a military force. Who the protesters are killing are military personnel. Without good, accurate information coming out of the country, it's not easy to know.

Militarily, this is a job for others to do.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Credo

[Steely Dan]

But fight it we will I have no doubt. How things have changed since the Iran-Iraq war where by design or accident the two nations slogged it out against one another and left the rest of us in peace. Now we seem to be embroiled in proxy wars doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood in Libya and potentially Syria, whilst Russia backs the other horse. Hopefully if military action is required Turkey will do their fair share, though I somehow doubt they will have an appetite to take on Iran as well, which would be the likely outcome of their involvement.

[flying]

Is this guy for real ? I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises. Let's throw a few more weapons to the enemy!!!

This is standard operating procedures....

They are called rebels & sometimes even freedom fighters......Then when they no longer serve a useful purpose they are called terrorist.

That is when the real profit starts to come because then much $$$ is spent arming & sending troops to retrieve those weapons we gave...

One Bullet At A Time

Edited February 9, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Credo]

It's just a bunch of emotive words. What they are is protestors, protesting against their government for their own reasons. The implications of the conflict are wide-reaching, but the people protesting probably have little interest or concern in that matter.

[Orac]

But fight it we will I have no doubt. How things have changed since the Iran-Iraq war where by design or accident the two nations slogged it out against one another and left the rest of us in peace. Now we seem to be embroiled in proxy wars doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood in Libya and potentially Syria, whilst Russia backs the other horse. Hopefully if military action is required Turkey will do their fair share, though I somehow doubt they will have an appetite to take on Iran as well, which would be the likely outcome of their involvement.

Not sure about the Iran-Iraq war leaving the rest of the world in peace but it did provide an ideal opportunity for the US, and the soviets for that matter, to supply arms to both sides despite the fact that Iran was subject to an arms embargo as was supplying arms to the Nicaraguan Contras that the proceeds of some of these sales were used for.

I hate to think what will happen to the massive US military industrial complex if a new war against Iran or Syria can't be arranged.

[coma]

But fight it we will I have no doubt. How things have changed since the Iran-Iraq war where by design or accident the two nations slogged it out against one another and left the rest of us in peace. Now we seem to be embroiled in proxy wars doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood in Libya and potentially Syria, whilst Russia backs the other horse. Hopefully if military action is required Turkey will do their fair share, though I somehow doubt they will have an appetite to take on Iran as well, which would be the likely outcome of their involvement.

Yes. Iran is definately a deterant. If Syria was geographically situated in , let's say, Northern Africa. Then Western military action would be done and dusted by now me thinks.

[coma]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

You are right about that one.

[Scott]

One off-topic post deleted. Please stay on the topic.

[Ulysses G.]

I hate to think what will happen to the massive US military industrial complex if a new war against Iran or Syria can't be arranged.

If this conspiracy nonsense were true, the US would have already invaded as there are plenty of good reasons to do so. It is pretty obvious that they are avoiding war in both places.

[chuckd]

I don't understand the big surprise in all this.

Pentagon planners are generally charged with evaluating all possible scenarios worldwide from the military standpoint.

Seems to me they are simply performing the functions for which they were hired.

Everybody can relax. Obama won't do anything without full UN compliance and we all know that won't be forthcoming.

[Morch]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

I have no idea is the USA govrenment despises Assad or not. Probably don't like him much, for sure.

That said - his dad did pretty much the same and more, then stayed in power for a long time. The USA put up with him just fine.

Syria isn't Iran's puppet. There's some sort of outcast alliance, there's a common interest in helping Hezbolla in Lebanon, and both got issues with the USA and Israel. Other than that,Syria is rather weary of Iranian influence internally. Got to take care letting in a bunch of zealous Shi'a when you're trying to run a secular-yet-Sunni-majority country :-). They listen when Iran speaks, but do not jump to attention or anything.

My guess this is more about timing and oppertunity, more than anything else. Having Russia lose its foothold there a major bonus, maybe shooting for splitting Syria to more managable bits.

[Exsexyman]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator yet only a short while ago they were rendering people there to be tortured by his regime. What changed?

[koheesti]

But fight it we will I have no doubt. How things have changed since the Iran-Iraq war where by design or accident the two nations slogged it out against one another and left the rest of us in peace. Now we seem to be embroiled in proxy wars doing the dirty work of the Muslim brotherhood in Libya and potentially Syria, whilst Russia backs the other horse. Hopefully if military action is required Turkey will do their fair share, though I somehow doubt they will have an appetite to take on Iran as well, which would be the likely outcome of their involvement.

Not sure about the Iran-Iraq war leaving the rest of the world in peace but it did provide an ideal opportunity for the US, and the soviets for that matter, to supply arms to both sides despite the fact that Iran was subject to an arms embargo as was supplying arms to the Nicaraguan Contras that the proceeds of some of these sales were used for.

I hate to think what will happen to the massive US military industrial complex if a new war against Iran or Syria can't be arranged.

I hear there's a revolution brewing in Greece - or at least there will be.

[geriatrickid]

The USA should not intervene. To do so would provoke a confrontation with Iran and piss off Turkey.

Israel most likely would prefer that the Syrians sort out the mess themselves. Better the enemy one knows than an enemy one doesn't know. As it is, Hizbollah fighters from Lebanon are deployed in Syria helping the regime. Iranian Republican guards are now guarding some Syrian facilities. Intervening in Syria will cause Hizbollah to launch an attack on Israel in an attempt to provoke a defensive invasion of Lebanon and cause the arab block to respond accordingly.

This is a mess that the arab block must solve itself. That means deploying arab nation peacekeeping troops. It also means that Turkey has to step up and secure the borders and look for a solution. For the sake of world peace, everyone else should not get sucked in.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Scott
formatting

[chuckd]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

I have no idea is the USA govrenment despises Assad or not. Probably don't like him much, for sure.

That said - his dad did pretty much the same and more, then stayed in power for a long time. The USA put up with him just fine.

Syria isn't Iran's puppet. There's some sort of outcast alliance, there's a common interest in helping Hezbolla in Lebanon, and both got issues with the USA and Israel. Other than that,Syria is rather weary of Iranian influence internally. Got to take care letting in a bunch of zealous Shi'a when you're trying to run a secular-yet-Sunni-majority country :-). They listen when Iran speaks, but do not jump to attention or anything.

My guess this is more about timing and oppertunity, more than anything else. Having Russia lose its foothold there a major bonus, maybe shooting for splitting Syria to more managable bits.

For your information, the ruling family of Syria, the Assads, are Shiite while over 70% of the Syrian Muslim population are Sunni Muslims.

Iran is primarily a Shiite nation which supports Shiite organizations world wide, ala Syrian leaders, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the uprising in Bahrain and the Shiites in Iraq.

The Syrian Sunnis are probably sick of Iran's influence but the Shiite ruling minority gladly accept it. Syria might not be Iran's puppet but the ruling Assad family is.

[Jingthing]

Contrary to popular myth, Israeli and American government foreign policy wishes aren't always in synch.

[koheesti]

I find it interesting that Mr McCain uses the word " rebels " instead of terrorists, , which of course would be the term he would use if said "rebels" weren't fighting against a leader the US dispises.

I don't see the rebels purposely blowing up civilians as terrorists do. They are defending themselves against a fascist leader and fascist military that is perfectly happy to slaughter its own people to stay in power.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator who is a puppet of more hateful dictators in Iran.

The US despises Assad because he is a hateful dictator yet only a short while ago they were rendering people there to be tortured by his regime. What changed?

Can you think of a better place to send someone to be tortured than to a hateful dictator? Other than a Justin Beiber concert that is.

[mstribling]

Arab peacekeeping troops. Good one.

[koheesti]

The USA should not intervene. To do so would provoke a confrontation with Iran and piss off Turkey.

Israel most likely would prefer that the Syrians sort out the mess themselves. Better the enemy one knows than an enemy one doesn't know. As it is, Hizbollah fighters from Lebanon are deployed in Syria helping the regime. Iranian Republican guards are now guarding some Syrian facilities. Intervening in Syria will cause Hizbollah to launch an attack on Israel in an attempt to provoke a defensive invasion of Lebanon and cause the arab block to respond accordingly.

This is a mess that the arab block must solve itself. That means deploying arab nation peacekeeping troops. It alsomeans that Turkey has to step up and secure the borders and look for a solution. For the sake of world peace, everyone else should not get sucked in.

Another reason to stay out (besides co$t) is that the region is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap. Anything the USA does - or doesn't do - will be met with criticism (anyone following this forum can attest to that). Whoever comes out on top will probably be worse than the Assads anyway. So, leave them alone. Like you say, let the Arabs fix it themselves.

[Jingthing]

The US and Iran are going to be in severe conflict soon enough if Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear development sites. I'm not smart enough to know how the west can help the people in Syria from being killed by their own government when the Syrian regime has such good allies in Iran and Russia.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Jingthing

[Credo]

I have to agree with GK. The US should not get involved. Much of US Foreign Policy is based on protecting US interests overseas. There are few US interests in Syria. The struggle is internal to Syria and it affects them and possibly their neighbors. Additionally, the risks of involvement politically are too great.

It's an Arab and regional problem and needs to be settled by them.

My thoughts are with the people of Syria, I do hope someone comes to their aid.

[Morch]

The USA should not intervene. To do so would provoke a confrontation with Iran and piss off Turkey.

Israel most likely would prefer that the Syrians sort out the mess themselves. Better the enemy one knows than an enemy one doesn't know. As it is, Hizbollah fighters from Lebanon are deployed in Syria helping the regime. Iranian Republican guards are now guarding some Syrian facilities. Intervening in Syria will cause Hizbollah to launch an attack on Israel in an attempt to provoke a defensive invasion of Lebanon and cause the arab block to respond accordingly.

This is a mess that the arab block must solve itself. That means deploying arab nation peacekeeping troops. It also means that Turkey has to step up and secure the borders and look for a solution. For the sake of world peace, everyone else should not get sucked in.

I'm not so sure about those reports regarding Iranian forces activlly assisting the Syrian regime. Syria got a large army, defections or not, and more than a few dedicated elite units which will stay loyal. Bringing in Iranian soldiers will be (1) showing too much weakness (inward and outward) (2) open a religious can of worms (3) piss off the Russians. If it is true, than it signals Assad & Co. position is precarious indeed.

Hezbollah is a different matter as they have some bases within Syria. But again, would be surprised if they are part of a major effort in their vicinity. There's quite a lot of popular resentment for the amount of aid Syria transfers to Hezbolla, and the preocuppation of the regime with Lebanon in general. So using them in this case is sort of shooting yourself in the leg, as far as Assad goes. That too is/will be a sure sign that he feels the situation is dire.

Israel might have an interesting take on this: Having an intact Syrian regime, with a large arsenal of biologica/chemical missiles next door was a serious deterrent when considering attacking Iran. The Hezbollah can do some damage, yes, but not on the same level.

Having Assad in a jam can be seen as a window of opprtunity for an attack. Then again, a stressed dictator with the finger on the button maybe isn't such a good idea :-). Regardless of Iran, I think, what worries Israel is who will be in charge next and how to control Syria's weaponary from passing over to Hezbollah etc.

An Arab peace keeping force (or a joint UN-Arab League one) would probably be best, only that those things rarely work out well. Not getting sucked in sounds like a good notion.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Morch

[Morch]

The Alawi are Shi'a...sort of. It's not exactly the "mainstream" Shi'a dominant in Iran, more like an offshoot that went a little astray. There were times when they weren't even accepted as Muslim.

Being a minority in Syria is one of the reasons Assad Senior went for a secular state, as to downplay religious differences that might foster resistance to his rule. This has been going on for over 40 years now, with the Alawi youngest and brightest indoctrinated to be loyal to Assad and the Ba'ath Party, rather than to their religious leaders. It's not exactly what you would call a very vibrant religion nowadays.Both Assads even made a point of participating in Sunni prayers on holidays, for the sake of unity.

Irani clergymen were very hesitant about accepting the Alawi as Shi'a. This gradually came about, but is a pretty new thing as such things go (circa 1970 and onward, I believe), and had a lot to do with political alliances, needs and oppertunities.

In a nutshell, the Alawi ruling minority was on a quest to deflect the Sunni claim that they are heretic usurpers. For that they needed recognition as being part of mainstream Islam. Iran was looking to foster influence and ties in the area. Both had issues with Iraq, and similar interests in Lebanon.

However, the Syrian regime did not wish to amplify differences with the Sunni majority, merely to get a certain religious legitimacy. Therefore, there was never an influx of Irani clergymen or a very active public application of Shi'a doctrine. Iran was never given a serious foothold within Syria, even control of the Hezbolla being a mixed bag.

Assad Senior was many things, stupid wasn't one of them.

[flying]

Contrary to popular myth, Israeli and American government foreign policy wishes aren't always in synch.

The US and Iran are going to be in severe conflict soon enough if Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear development sites.

Yes they are not in sync per se'

Yet as you say in your next post The US will be drawn into it if Israel bombs Iran

[coma]

Arab peacekeeping troops. Good one.

Yes. Peace is a hard word to find in the Standard Arabic dictionary. Let alone a common word in Arab peoples vocabulary. So I would find it hard to see the Arab league being willing and/or capable of mustering and deploying such a force that would be a benefit to the ongoing situation in Syria. Such a force may well serve as a force that creates more confustion and complicating things even more. Coming from a middle east background I know how hard it is to get to Arabs to agree on anything large or small.Getting the world arab popultion to agree on a course of action for Syria is unfortunatley Mission Impossible!

[chuckd]

Could this be next in Assad's plan of attack? Consider the source of the material.

________________________________________________________

Assad forces mull use of chemical weapons in Homs, opposition says

By Zvi Bar'el and DPA

Syria's military has begun stockpiling chemical weapons and equipping its soldiers with gas masks near the city of Homs, opposition sources reported on Thursday.

Opposition activists said they had received reports that the Syrian army had transferred a significant quantity of grenades and mortars containing chemical agents to a school building in Homs.

The opposition also reported that gas masks were being distributed to soldiers at roadblocks.

http://www.haaretz.c...n-says-1.411954

[Jingthing]

Haaretz, the esteemed left wing Israeli newspaper favored by the Israeli intelligentsia is an excellent source. However, their source for the story is Syrian activists, so they are the source you would have to consider. They might be biased to report negative things about the regime.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Jingthing