Brits, French debate whether to join U.S. in military strike in Syria
LONDON — British forces are drawing up contingency plans for a “proportionate” response to an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, the prime minister's office said on Tuesday, while France said it is ready to “punish” those responsible, raising the possibility that the European nations could join a possible U.S.-led military strike.
Prime Minister David Cameron cut short a vacation to return to London and announced that he would recall parliament to the capital on Thursday to discuss a possible military response.
In a televised address, French President Francois Hollande said it was the world's responsibility to take action.
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC that U.S. forces are “ready to go,” but he reiterated that the United States wants to work “in concert” with the international community. “We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Hagel said.
In Washington, White House spokesman Jay Carney said President Obama has been consulting other world leaders but has not yet decided on a course of action in Syria. Carney said Obama has spoken with Cameron, Hollande, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
Obama “will continue to make calls to his counterparts throughout the week,” Carney said. “Nothing has been decided,” he added.
In Syria, meanwhile, Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem said Syria's military would defend the country against any foreign intervention. Syria vehemently denies responsibility for the attack, which left more than 300 people dead and many wounded.
“We all hear the drums of war around us,” Moualem said. “If they want to attack Syria, I think that using the lie of chemical weapons is fake and not accurate, and I challenge them to show evidence.”
He said the idea of a Western military strike to change the balance of power in Syria, which has been embroiled in a vicious civil conflict for more than two years, is “delusional and not at all possible.”
Moualem said Secretary of State John Kerry called him on Thursday, their first contact in 2 1⁄2 years. During a “friendly” conversation, Moualem said, Kerry requested that a U.N. team in Syria be allowed access to areas where the strikes allegedly happened.
The U.N. inspectors gained access on Monday to one of the sites of last week's alleged chemical attack and spent three hours interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence, despite its convoy briefly coming under sniper fire.
After the incident, a second day of investigations was postponed on Tuesday. Moualem said the team was not able to visit a second site because rebel groups could not guarantee security. Khalid Saleh, a spokesman for the Syrian Opposition Coalition, blamed the Syrian government, saying it had not allowed the U.N. team to leave its hotel, citing “security reasons.”
The United Nations declined to comment on why the team was delayed, saying that casting blame could jeopardize negotiations over safely reaching the areas struck by the attack.
“I'm not going to point fingers,” said U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq. “There is a complex situation on the ground, and we are trying our best to secure access.”
Moualem said the government of President Bashar Assad was cooperating fully with the probe and that the United Nations had requested access to the sites in question only on Saturday.
However, Haq said the initial request was sent to the Syrian government on Thursday, the day after the alleged attack.
In retaliation for the “massacre” in the Damascus suburbs, al-Qaida-linked rebels said they would strike Assad's security branches and infrastructure in an operation called “Volcano of Revenge,” according to a statement distributed by the jihadist Baqiya Media Foundation.
“It has become proven to us that this enemy only knows the language of force, and we will discuss with it with rocket launchers and shells, and make them to be lava over its head,” said the statement, which was signed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the recently expanded al-Qaida in Iraq, the hard-line Islamist Ahrar al-Sham rebel group and seven other rebel factions.
The British, along with the French, have led the calls in Europe to boost efforts to aid the Syrian opposition in its fight against Assad. France said on Tuesday that its forces were ready.
“France is ready to punish those who took the decision to gas the innocent,” Hollande said.
Cameron, however, is facing mounting pressure — including from within his own Conservative Party — to win support in parliament before taking any action.
Cameron has the authority to initiate strikes with or without the backing of parliament. But any attempt to intervene in Syria over the objections of lawmakers would be politically risky.
Some lawmakers remain skeptical about whether further involvement in Syria's civil war suits British national interests, especially without a U.N. mandate.
“I'm going to need convincing,” said Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative member of parliament who drafted a letter to Cameron signed by 81 lawmakers. He said he was puzzled as to why the Syrian regime would choose to use chemical weapons at this point in the civil war, knowing the likely stakes.
“We need to hear there are limits to how our involvement could escalate,” Bridgen said. “Our military is already stretched and battled-fatigued.” Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a London-based defense analyst, said in an interview that Britain would involve itself in limited military action in Syria only if it were a “multinational” effort. He also said that Syria's sophisticated air defense system may need to be “neutralized” to allow missiles to hit their marks and that British forces on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus could “undoubtedly” play a role if London decided to participate in strikes.
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.