WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The Obama administration is opposed to even limited U.S.
military intervention in Syria because it believes rebels fighting the
Assad regime wouldn't support American interests if they were to seize
power right now, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, wrote to a congressman in a letter obtained by The Associated
Press.
Effectively ruling out U.S. cruise
missile attacks and other options that wouldn't require U.S. troops on
the ground, Dempsey said the military is clearly capable of taking out
Syrian President Bashar Assad's air force and shifting the balance of
the Arab country's 2 1/2-year war back toward the armed opposition. But
he said such an approach would plunge the United States deep into
another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a
nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.
"Syria
today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing
one among many sides," Dempsey said in the letter Aug. 19 to Rep. Eliot
Engel, D-N.Y. "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."
Dempsey's pessimistic
assessment will hardly please members of the fractured Syrian opposition
leadership and some members of the administration who have championed
greater support to help the rebellion end Assad's four-decade family
dynasty. Despite almost incessant bickering and internal disputes, some
opposition groups have worked with the United States and other European
and Arab supporters to try to form a cohesive, inclusive movement
dedicated to a democratic and multiethnic state.
But
those fighting the Assad government range wildly in political and
ethnic beliefs and not all are interested in Western support.
As
the conflict has gone on, killing more than 100,000 people and ripping
apart the delicate sectarian fabric of Syrian society, 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 regime has
committed. 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's war was "tragic and complex."
"It
is a deeply rooted, long-term conflict among multiple factions, and
violent struggles for power will continue after Assad's rule ends," he
wrote. "We should evaluate the effectiveness of limited military options
in this context."
On Wednesday, two Syrian
pro-opposition groups claimed that government forces carried out a
"poisonous gas" attack near the capital, Damascus, leaving dozens of
people dead. The Syrian government denied the reports.
"They
are an attempt to divert the U.N. commission on chemical weapons from
carrying out its mission," the state-run SANA news agency said, quoting
an unnamed government official, as is its standard practice.
The
head of the U.N. team in Syria to investigate previous claims of
alleged chemical attacks said he wants to look into the latest claims.
There was no government comment on the claims and the reports could not be independently confirmed.
Despite
calling for Assad to leave power in 2011, President Barack Obama has
steadfastly refused to allow the U.S. to be drawn directly into the
conflict. Officials have said for the past couple of months, however,
that the U.S. is prepared to provide lethal aid to vetted, moderate
units among the opposition ranks. It's unclear what, if any, weapons
have been delivered so far.
Dempsey's letter
to Engel was another follow-up to a sharp examination he faced in July
from the Senate Armed Services Committee ahead of a reconfirmation vote.
Unable to answer questions by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona
and Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, 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 at a cost as much
as $1 billion a month and with no assurance that it would change the
war's momentum.
He also discouraged options
such as training vetted rebel groups, limited strikes on Syria's air
defenses and creating a buffer zone for the opposition, stressing the
need to avoid an outcome similar to Iraq or Afghanistan by preserving a
functioning state for any future power transfer. And he cited risks such
as lost U.S. aircraft.
Engel, another
advocate of more forceful U.S. action, joined the debate by proposing
the use of cruise missiles and other weapons against Syrian
government-controlled air bases in an Aug. 5 letter to Dempsey. The
congressman said such strikes would ground Assad's air force and reduce
the flow of weapons to his government from Iran and Russia, while
costing less to U.S. taxpayers and requiring no American troops on the
ground in Syria or in its airspace.
Dempsey said this approach wouldn't tip the balance against Assad and wouldn't solve the deeper problems plaguing Syria.
"We
can destroy the Syrian air force," he said. "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. Stated another way, it would not be militarily
decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict."
"The
use of U.S. military force can change the military balance," Dempsey
added. "But it cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic,
religious and tribal issues that are fueling this 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