Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Syrian
Wednesday, August 28, 2013 by DXTR corporation
Western intervention looms after reported Syrian chemical weapons attacks
By Ben Brumfield, CNN
August 28, 2013 -- Updated 1011 GMT (1811 HKT)
What are America's military options?
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- The United States continues to grind toward military intervention in Syria
- U.N. inspectors will search Wednesday for evidence of chemical weapons
- Some in the U.S. and abroad are against military intervention
- First strikes could come in a few days, officials say
And U.S. officials all but tell U.N. inspectors in Syria to get out of the way.
For almost two years,
President Obama has avoided direct military involvement in Syria's
bloody civil war as the death toll skyrocketed.
Now, after a suspected
chemical attack last week obliterated the "red line" Obama set, a flurry
of comments and activity seem to be laying the groundwork for a
military strike.
Is the admin "ready to go" on Syria?
Is the admin "ready to go" on Syria?
Inside Syria
Schiff: Need a narrowly defined mission
Security officials in
London will meet Wednesday to hash out options. And on the ground in
Syria, U.N. inspectors aimed to once again comb through the rubble of a
Damascus suburb in search of evidence that chemical weapons were used in
an attack last week that killed more than 1,300 people.
But U.S. officials aren't placing much stock in the findings.
"We clearly value the
U.N.'s work -- we've said that from the beginning -- when it comes to
investigating chemical weapons in Syria. But we've reached a point now
where we believe too much time has passed for the investigation to be
credible and that it's clear the security situation isn't safe for the
team in Syria," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Tuesday.
Instead, the U.S. and key
allies all agree something ought to be done -- and increasingly that is
leaning toward a military solution.
U.S. forces are ready, if
an order to strike comes down, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the
BBC on Tuesday. A senior Defense Department official told CNN that any
strike could be completed "within several days."
On Wednesday, Australia
said it won't send troops. But the British prime minister's office was
more circumspect in its statement.
Britain has drafted a
United Nations Security Council resolution "condemning the chemical
weapons attack by Assad and authorizing necessary measures to protect
civilians," David Cameron tweeted Wednesday. The resolution will be put
forward at the U.N. in New York later on Wednesday, he said.
The options
Going through the United Nations probably won't be a viable option for the United States and its allies.
Should anything be
proposed to the Security Council, Russia -- which is a close ally of
Syria and has a permanent seat on the council -- could block it. China,
which also has a seat on the council, would probably object to any
military measures against Syria.
At the same time, a military coalition is taking shape among Western powers.
Along with Britain,
France has also signaled it would join Western military intervention
against forces supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Senator: Syria attack will send message
Military chiefs meet to discuss Syria
Moscow: U.S. like monkey with grenade
Hollande: France will stand with U.S.
French President
Francois Hollande said Tuesday that France is "ready to punish those who
made the decision to gas these innocent people."
NATO ambassadors are to take up the topic of Syria at their regular Wednesday meeting.
Obama continues to review options, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, adding that "nothing has been decided."
Those options include peaceful diplomacy.
The next step is the
release of an intelligence report the United States conducted
independently of the U.N. It is to come out later this week, said a
Washington official who was not authorized to speak to the media.
The manner
The White House has
ruled out sending ground troops to Syria or implementing a no-fly zone
to blunt al-Assad's aerial superiority over rebels.
Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode
Island believes that the most realistic option would be cruise missiles
launched from U.S. Navy ships at sea, noting that "we can have precision
weapons that could be fired and keep our aircraft out of Syrian
airspace and away from their anti-aircraft systems."
"The most effective
targets would have command-and-control, because you could send a signal
to the Syrian regime that if they don't agree to international
standards, if they don't make it clear and make it obvious that they're
not going to use these weapons, and that we can inflict additional
damage on their command-and-control," he added.
The resistance
Syrian Foreign Minister
Walid Moallem says the United States has trumped up charges against his
government as an excuse for an already desired intervention.
"We all hear the drums
of war," he said Tuesday. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use
chemical weapons as a pretext is not right."
Syrian officials have steadfastly denied using chemical weapons in this or other cases.
If foreign powers do strike the Middle Eastern nation, its foreign minister said the government and its forces will fight back.
Why Russia is sticking by Syria
"Syria is not easy to swallow," said Moallem. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."
It has backers in Russia and Iran.
Russia is leading the
charge internationally against a strike, with Foreign Minister Sergey
Lavrov saying there is no proof yet Syria's government is behind last
week's chemical attack. It accused Washington of trying to "create
artificial groundless excuses for military intervention."
"The West handles the Islamic world the way a monkey handles a grenade," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin tweeted.
And Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif warned Wednesday of "graver conditions" should strikes be carried out.
"If any country attacks another when it wants, that is like the Middle Ages," he said.
The pushback
Some are pushing back at home and abroad on the White House's talk of intervention.
Military involvement seems unpopular with Americans. In opinion polls, few citizens approve of it.
Some members of Congress say that before Obama orders any strike, he should go through them first.
A group of 31 Republican
and six Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday sent a letter to the president
urging him "to consult and receive authorization" before signing off on
any military action.
Some fear a U.S. strike
could stoke the conflict, not quell it. Others don't want the
administration to go it alone. Reed of Rhode Island said NATO allies
must be involved, as well as members of the Arab League.
Former U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia is dead set against it. "Both sides are bad," he wrote in a commentary for CNN. "There is no victory to be had there."
U.N. Secretary General
Ban Ki-moon seemed to ask for a reprieve Wednesday for the sake of his
inspectors in Syria. "The team needs time to do its job," he said from
The Hague, where he visited the International Criminal Court.
He said the U.N. has already collected valuable evidence.
Source:CNN News International
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 Responses to “Syrian”
Post a Comment