U.S. Senator McCain calls for U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria

2012-03-06 06:51:50 GMT+7 (ICT)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (BNO NEWS) -- U.S. Senator John McCain on Monday called for a U.S.-led military operation to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, using airstrikes to protect civilians and rebels from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

There have been increasing calls for military intervention in Syria as Assad has stepped up his bloody crackdown against a popular uprising, resulting in the deaths of up to 8,000 people since the first protests in March 2011. Last month, McCain called for the United States to help arm the rebels against the Assad government, but he stopped short of calling for airstrikes.

"It is estimated that more than 7,500 lives have been lost. The United Nations has declared that Syrian security forces are guilty of crimes against humanity, including the indiscriminate shelling of civilians, the execution of defectors, and the widespread torture of prisoners," McCain said in a U.S. Senate floor speech. "Bashar al-Assad is now doing to Homs what his father did to Hama. Aerial photographs procured by Human Rights Watch show a city that has been laid to waste by Assad's tanks and artillery."

McCain, the first U.S. senator to publicly call for U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria, was also among the first U.S. officials to call for military intervention in Libya which led to the ouster of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi last year. "The kinds of mass atrocities that NATO intervened in Libya to prevent in Benghazi are now a reality in Homs," McCain said. "Indeed, Syria today is the scene of some of the worst state-sponsored violence since Milosevic's war crimes in the Balkans, or Russia's annihilation of the Chechen city of Grozny."

In early February, the Pentagon began a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities in Syria in the event that U.S. President Barack Obama calls for them. But senior administration officials said such a review is not unusual, and Obama has repeatedly said that he believes it is possible to end the conflict without outside military intervention.

But despite escalating international pressure and sanctions, Assad has been able to continue his crackdown. "Despite a year's worth of diplomacy backed by sanctions, Assad and his top lieutenants show no signs of giving up and taking the path into foreign exile," McCain said. "To the contrary, they appear to be accelerating their fight to the finish. And they are doing so with the shameless support of foreign governments, especially in Russia, China, and Iran."

The UN General Assembly passed a resolution last month which strongly condemned the continued 'widespread and systematic' human rights violations by the Syrian authorities and demanded that the Syrian government immediately ceases all violence and protects its people. But the UN Security Council, which has significantly more power, has failed to approve any significant statements due to opposition from Russia and China.

"The Security Council is totally shut down as an avenue for increased pressure," McCain said, acknowledging that there will be no UN Security Council mandate in the event of a military operation against the Syrian regime. "Russia and China took that option off the table long ago."

But McCain said the United States and other nations can launch a military operation without support from the UN Security Council. "NATO took military action to save Kosovo in 1999 without formal UN authorization," he said. "There is no reason why the Arab League, or NATO, or a leading coalition within the Friends of Syria contact group, or all of them speaking in unison, could not provide a similar international mandate for military measures to save Syria today."

"What opposition groups in Syria need most urgently is relief from Assad's tank and artillery sieges in the many cities that are still contested. Homs is lost for now, but Idlib, and Hama, and Qusayr, and Deraa, and other cities in Syria could still be saved," McCain said. "But time is running out. Assad's forces are on the march. Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower."

McCain, who was defeated by Obama in the 2008 presidential election, said the U.S. should lead an international effort to protect population centers in Syria through airstrikes on Assed's forces and by taking out air defenses in at least a part of the country. "The ultimate goal of airstrikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad," he said. "These safe havens could serve as platforms for the delivery of humanitarian and military assistance. These safe havens could also help the Free Syrian Army and other armed groups in Syria to train and organize themselves into more cohesive and effective military forces, likely with the assistance of foreign partners."

Thousands of people, mostly civilians, have been killed since the uprising - part of the broader Arab Spring movement across North Africa and the Middle East - began almost a year ago. More than 3,800 people have died according to government figures, but opposition activists claim the actual number has already surpassed 8,000.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-03-06

I would think that air strikes in Syria would likely kill more civilians than military personnel.

You are probably right, but this purposeful slaughter of civilians has to stop somehow.

Can be very effective against tanks and artillery.

Off-topic posts and replies have been deleted. This thread is not about other posters.

It is very easy to start a (limited) war but very very hard to stop it again.

What happens for example if you tell country A that if they don't stop for a period of time you will do X to them?

And they then ignore what you are doing and even escalate it.

Do you escalate as well or not?

What happens if some of your troops are captured and you then have to put more and more resources to stop country A from what it is doing.

What will you do if country A also attacks its neighbour, country B.

Where will it end?

Like Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan, many countries in Africa, former Yugoslavia, parts of the old Russian empire, Libya.

At some time before it starts you have to weigh the long term costs in men, materials, morale both in the troops and their families and the general public in your own country as it may cost more to your country than is returned.

What about national, allied and world opinion?

There are no limited term bushfire wars any more.

Why stop at Libya when you can get 2 for the price of 1.

Or perhaps what is transpiring in Libya is scaring the warmongers and they are now reluctant to be involved. Unless the price is right of course.

When will this old, corrupt out of touch man (McCain, not the replies) just wander off and go away?

The USA cannot take care of itself (debt, corruption, crime, education, health care, legal reform, warmongering, ect.).

So, how could a sane person agree with the military intervention by a politician of a non-allied country?

When will this old, corrupt out of touch man (McCain, not the replies) just wander off and go away?

The USA cannot take care of itself (debt, corruption, crime, education, health care, legal reform, warmongering, ect.).

So, how could a sane person agree with the military intervention by a politician of a non-allied country?

I'm sure that if you and your family were some of the innocent civilians there you wouldn't be whining about who comes in and rescues you. I am not a USA lover of war either however someone has to help these poor innocent people and at least they have the power and motivation to do it.

Shame on you to not care about humanity in this millennium.

There isn't much oil in Syria. Why bother?

There isn't much oil in Syria. Why bother?

Was there any in Bosnia ?

At this particular juncture in time, the US tends to attract more problems than it solves in these Middle Eastern conflicts.

Saving the Syrians might be a noble gesture, but I am afraid it might attract many of the jihadists who might otherwise stay away.

I think this conflict may be better taken care of by others.

i hope McCain is bluffing or just kidding......

Putin: “If US will attack Syria, we shall set up a coalition of concerned states and we shall strike!”

" I would like to warn our Western colleagues against the temptation to resort to the unsophisticated scheme used earlier: if there is an UN Security Council approval of any particular action, it is good; if there is no such approval, we shall set up a coalition of concerned states. And we shall strike,” the Russian prime minister said.

“Any attempts to try to implement the ‘Lybian scenario’ in Syria must be prevented,” he said"

http://syrianfreepre...related-videos/

It's a difficult one this, Libya has shown how all we achieved was replacing a secular tyrant with Islamic militants proceeding to settle scores with whoever it wants to. Syria would likely go the same way. What I would approve of is replacing any Islamic theocracy with a puppet government because at least we get some return for our investment, hence I would not approve of causing regime change in Syria, unless of course it is seen as a natural precursor to dealing similarly with Iran.

It's a difficult one this, Libya has shown how all we achieved was replacing a secular tyrant with Islamic militants proceeding to settle scores with whoever it wants to. Syria would likely go the same way. What I would approve of is replacing any Islamic theocracy with a puppet government because at least we get some return for our investment, hence I would not approve of causing regime change in Syria, unless of course it is seen as a natural precursor to dealing similarly with Iran.

is it really worth risking a major war that could involve China and Russia?

Would I trust the judgement of a man who chose Sarah Pailin as his running mate?

The middle eastern countries need to step in, not the US. If the US does take action it will be viewed as the great satan flexing its muscles again, the global policeman, blah, blah. Whereas, if fellow middle eastern countries (except Israel) step in there will be less of a backlash by the anti-US jihadists, etc. Also, there would be no ned to worry about Russia. But sabre rattling aside, most of those countries do not seem to be prepared to do anything.

When will this old, corrupt out of touch man (McCain, not the replies) just wander off and go away?

The USA cannot take care of itself (debt, corruption, crime, education, health care, legal reform, warmongering, ect.).

So, how could a sane person agree with the military intervention by a politician of a non-allied country?

I'm sure that if you and your family were some of the innocent civilians there you wouldn't be whining about who comes in and rescues you. I am not a USA lover of war either however someone has to help these poor innocent people and at least they have the power and motivation to do it.

Shame on you to not care about humanity in this millennium.

Save your shame and pity for the people of Tibet and Africa and numerous other countries, where the atrocities have been going on much longer than your 'flavor of the month-news story brought to you by western media".

I wasn't whining, just stating facts.

Your may not be a USA lover of war but you definitely have the outlook of a typical white middle aged or older american.

To change the conduct of a person you sometimes need an emotional event. You won't hit any of the wrong people if you just flaten all the Air, Navy and Army bases in the country. Your not going to want them around if that fails anyway.

One post that is in violation of fair use policy has been deleted. You may only quote the first three sentences of an article and then post a link to the remainder of the article. To do otherwise, can be considered copyright violation.

Although there are some exceptions, the general policy on US foreign affairs is to protect US interests overseas. Membership in groups such as NATO sometimes trumps this policy, however, in the case of Syria, the relationship between the US and Syria has been rather chilly for quite some time, so there are few US interests that would need protecting. The country is not likely to be a threat to US security in the short term.

Any administration that intervenes might have a problem justifying intervention, especially if it doesn't go well.

But Syria has all the roads and airspace needed for Iran. An Inconvenient Truth.

Would I trust the judgement of a man who chose Sarah Pailin as his running mate?

This link paints another picture of the 'hero' McCain.

http://bluebanshee.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/the-real-story-of-john-mccain/

So, the answer is a resounding NO.

Any western intervention should be by NATO, or certainly not only by the US. No way is this situation solely up to the US or Israel to solve. NATO, Middle Eastern countries, yes, but not the US.

An off-topic post has been deleted. This is not about presidential candidates and their choice in running mates.

Big government, pro-interventionists and pro-war hawks would love to do this.

While tragic for the Syrian opposition, the U.S. cannot serve as the world's policeman.

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

To the poster that recommended watching a documentary called "Why we fight', thank you, an excellent piece of viewing (I think your post has been deleted for other reasons). Almost two hours and an amazing look into the American Military Industrial Complex.

Your first link if you want to watch it is here, there are 12 parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm1B7x5JZfE

Jim, here are a few other thoughtful pieces:

"Iraq for sale"

"Rethink Afganistan"

Posted with Thaivisa App http://apps.thaivisa.com

And this thread is about McCain and SYRIA. Lets keep it that way, thanks