WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The Obama administration searched for answers Wednesday about a
reported chemical weapons attack in Syria that would mark the most
flagrant violation yet of the U.S. "red line" for potential military
action. But the possibility of intervention seemed ever smaller after
America's top general offered a starkly pessimistic assessment of
options.
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a letter this week to a congressman
that the administration is opposed to even limited action in Syria
because it believes rebels fighting the Assad government wouldn't
support American interests if they seized power.
Dempsey
said the U.S. military is clearly capable of taking out Assad's air
force and shifting the balance of the war toward the armed opposition.
But such an approach would plunge the U.S. into the war without offering
any strategy for ending what has become a sectarian fight, he said.
On
Wednesday, Syrian anti-Assad activists accused the government of
carrying out a toxic gas attack in the eastern suburbs of Damascus,
killing at least 100 people including children. The claims coincided
with a visit by a U.N. chemical weapons team to three previous sites of
alleged attacks. Syrian President Bashar Assad's government rejected the
accusations, and U.S. officials said they were seeking details of what
happened.
For the United States, the death
toll and painful images again put a spotlight on President Barack
Obama's pledge almost exactly a year ago to respond forcefully to any
chemical weapons use by the Assad government. Since then, the
administration has said it has confirmed that Syrian forces have
committed such attacks, and the U.S. has ordered a lethal aid package of
small arms to be sent to some rebel groups, though it's unclear what if
any weapons have been delivered.
Yet up to
now, Obama has refused all options of direct U.S. military intervention
in a civil war that has killed more than 100,000 people and displaced
millions.
"The United States is deeply
concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed
in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of
chemical weapons," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday.
"We
are working urgently to gather additional information," Earnest said,
adding that Washington has asked for U.N. investigators to be granted
access to the area of the fighting. He made no mention of possible
consequences if chemical weapons use is confirmed.
Obama
has stated that he doesn't want to be drawn into another Mideast
conflict after a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and polling
suggests he has the public's support on that.
Dempsey,
in his letter, said, "Syria today is not about choosing between two
sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," In the Aug. 19
letter to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., he said, "It is my belief that the
side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when
the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not."
Despite
Dempsey's assessment of the forces fighting Assad, Obama recognized the
Syrian opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative" of the
Syrian people more than eight months ago. And Secretary of State John
Kerry has repeatedly backed the moderate vision promoted by Salim Idris,
the rebel military chief.
But the more than
50 distinct rebel groups fighting to end the Assad family's four-decade
dynasty range wildly in political beliefs and not all are interested in
Western support.
As the conflict has dragged
on, al-Qaida-linked rebels and other extremist groups have been
responsible for some of the same types of massacres and ethnic attacks
that the Assad government is accused of. On Tuesday, Kurdish militias
battled against al-Qaida-linked fighters in the northeast in fighting
that has fueled a mass exodus of refugees into Iraq and risks exploding
into a full-blown side conflict.
Dempsey said
Syria was experiencing "a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among
multiple factions and violent struggles for power" that will continue
after Assad's rule ends.
His letter to Engel
was a follow-up to the sharp examination he faced in July from the
Senate Armed Services Committee as part of his reconfirmation.
Dempsey
sent a letter afterward saying the establishment of a no-fly zone to
protect the Syrian rebels would require hundreds of U.S. aircraft, cost
as much as $1 billion a month and offer no assurance of changing the
war's momentum. He also discouraged training of rebel groups, limited
strikes on Syria's air defenses or creating a buffer zone for the
opposition, citing the high costs involved and risks such as lost U.S.
aircraft.
Engel, an advocate of more forceful
U.S. action, proposed the use of cruise missiles and other weapons
against Syrian government-controlled air bases in an Aug. 5 letter to
Dempsey. The congressman said strikes could ground Assad's air force and
reduce weapons flow to his government from Iran and Russia, while
costing less to U.S. taxpayers and requiring no American troops in
Syrian territory or airspace.
Dempsey said this approach wouldn't tip the balance against Assad and wouldn't solve the deeper problems plaguing Syria.
"The
loss of Assad's air force would negate his ability to attack opposition
forces from the air, but it would also escalate and potentially further
commit the United States to the conflict," Dempsey said. "It would not
be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the
conflict."
Instead, he spoke in favor of an expansion of the Obama administration's current policy.
The
U.S. can provide far greater humanitarian assistance and, if asked, do
more to bolster a moderate opposition in Syria. Such an approach
"represents the best framework for an effective U.S. strategy toward
Syria," Dempsey said.
No comments:
Post a Comment