U.S. moves closer to arming rebels
WASHINGTON — President Obama is preparing to send lethal weaponry to the Syrian opposition and has taken steps to assert more aggressive U.S. leadership among allies and partners seeking the ouster of President Bashar Assad, according to senior administration officials.
The officials emphasized that supplying arms is one of several options under consideration and that political negotiation remains the preferred option. To that end, the administration has begun an effort to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that the probable use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government — and the more direct outside intervention that could provoke — should lead him to reconsider his support of Assad.
But Obama, who spoke by telephone with Putin on Monday and is sending Secretary of State John Kerry to Moscow in the coming days, is likely to make a final decision on the supply of arms to the opposition within weeks, before a scheduled meeting with Putin in June, officials said.
Confirmation of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government, Obama said on Tuesday, would mean that “there are some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would strongly consider.”
At a news conference, he emphasized the need to “make sure I've got the facts. ... If we end up rushing to judgment without hard, effective evidence, we can find ourselves in a position where we can't mobilize the international community to support” additional action. Administration officials have made repeated reference to the George W. Bush administration's inaccurate claims of weapons of mass destruction to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Yet even as Obama voiced caution in responding to what he has called the “red line” on chemical weapons use, officials described him as ready to move on what one described as the “left-hand side” of a broad spectrum that ranged from “arming the opposition to boots on the ground.”
“We're clearly on an upward trajectory,” the senior official said. “We've moved over to assistance that has a direct military purpose.”
Officials did not specify what equipment is under consideration, although the rebels have specifically requested antitank weapons and surface-to-air missiles.
Syria's neighbors and, according to recent polls, the American public oppose the insertion of U.S. troops in a conflict that has killed more than 70,000 people. Such a move remains highly unlikely barring a spillover of the conflict into major regional instability, significant use of chemical weapons or indications that those weapons are falling into the hands of al-Qaida-linked Islamist militants fighting alongside Syrian opposition forces.
U.S. and allied military and contract personnel have been training Jordanian and rebel forces to deal with the chemical weapons threat. U.S. intelligence has tried to contact Syrian government units charged with protecting the weapons to warn against their use, and U.N. experts are preparing to secure chemical sites in the event of a negotiated cease-fire.
But the senior official, one of several who discussed internal administration deliberations on condition of anonymity, said Obama has “not closed the door to other military actions,” in response to calls from the opposition and some members of Congress for protection against Syrian ballistic missiles and airstrikes.
Asked about the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone over rebel-held areas, the official said the administration was “reviewing all options.”
Meanwhile, Obama said he'd redouble efforts on a failed first-term campaign promise to close the prison for terror suspects at the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
“Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe,” Obama said. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counterterrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”
His remarks came after 100 of the 166 detainees at the facility embarked on hunger strikes. The inmates are being force-fed despite concerns from the American Medical Association that the practice violates core ethical values of the medical profession.
Obama said he'd directed a team to review the issue before he'd ask Congress again to shutter the facility.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, repeated his reservations about a no-fly zone, emphasizing it is more complicated and riskier than advocates believe. “I have to assume ... a potential adversary is not just going to sit back” and allow its air defense systems to be destroyed, Dempsey said at a lunch hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
Syria's air defenses, in populated areas in the western part of the country, are “much denser and more sophisticated” than those confronted by the international coalition that intervened in Libya during its 2011 conflict, he said. Establishing a no-fly zone in Syria would require air bases in the region, the positioning of search and rescue resources for downed pilots and the ability to sustain operations for the long term in a time of fiscal constraint and readiness concerns, Dempsey said.
The administration has been edging toward provision of weapons to the rebels for months, first announcing it would provide food and medical supplies to opposition military forces and more recently that it would send defensive gear such as body armor and night-vision goggles.
Partner nations, including Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Britain, have urged the United States to take a more active role in helping the rebels.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.