Obama: Syria attack a 'big event of grave concern'

By JULIE PACE
AP White House Correspondent

AUBURN, N.Y. (AP) -- President Barack Obama says a possible chemical weapons attack in Syria this week is a "big event of grave concern" that has hastened the timeframe for determining a U.S. response.

"This is something that is going to require America's attention," Obama said during an interview broadcast Friday.

However, the president said the notion that the U.S. alone can end Syria's bloody civil war is "overstated" and made clear he would seek international support before taking large-scale action.

Despite 'grave' concern on Syria, Obama stresses cautious response

By Roberta Rampton and Jeff Mason

WASHINGTON/AUBURN, New York |(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said in an interview aired on Friday that an apparent poison gas attack in Syria this week was "clearly a big event" but said the United States must be cautious in its response.

In his first public comments since Wednesday's attack in the Damascus suburbs, Obama stressed the importance of international law in responding to the incident, and said he was wary of the financial and human costs of getting involved in complex foreign disputes.

US 'deeply concerned' by Syria 'toxic gas' claim

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House says it's "deeply concerned" about reports that chemical weapons were used by Syria's government against civilians.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest says the U.S. strongly condemns any use of chemical weapons and says the Obama administration is urgently working to gather information. Earnest says the U.S. is asking the U.N. to investigate and wants a Security Council debate.

Syrian anti-government activists say the regime carried out a toxic gas attack Wednesday, killing at least 100 people, but the government has denied that.

The attack coincided with a U.N. chemical weapons team's visit to investigate previous chemical weapons allegations.

The U.S. concluded in June that Syria probably used chemical weapons. That led to a U.S. decision to approve sending weapons to the rebels for the first time.

Reported Syria attack tests US hope to avoid war

By BRADLEY KLAPPER
Associated Press

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: Syrian rebels wouldn't back US interests

By BRADLEY KLAPPER
Associated Press

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.

US Intel committees approve arming Syrian rebels, top general warns of costs

Published time: July 23, 2013 02:54
Edited time: July 23, 2013 08:31

Gen. Martin Dempsey (AFP Photo)

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have given a green light to arm Syrian rebels, as their concerns were alleviated. But a top US general warned that high costs of military options could reach billions.
Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American military advisor, wrote that a no-fly zone over Syria would cost the US between $500 million and $1 billion a month to maintain, and may be ineffective because the Syrian army relies on artillery, not air support, to fight the insurrection.
In the meantime, US President Barack Obama will continue with the plan to arm Syrian rebels after several congressional concerns were alleviated, Reuters quoted officials as saying. "We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward,"House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said.
The House and Senate intelligence committees gave a green light to send CIA weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, Washington Post reported, adding that the US will use the money already in the CIA’s budget and transfer it to the Syria operation. The plan was announced last month by the Obama administration and involves giving small arms and ammunition to some of the 1,200 groups of Syrian rebels, some of which have known affiliations with al-Qaeda. 
The infrastructure is already in place and arms are expected to start coming in the next several weeks.
Dempsey’s letter, dated July 19 and made public July 22, was written in response to a contentious meeting with Senator John McCain, who accused Dempsey of withholding information during a previous meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee. McCain has threatened to place a hold on Dempsey’s nomination for another two-year term as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs unless the general provides more details on hypothetical military action.
Scenarios outlined by Dempsey included: Train, Advise and Assist the Opposition; Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes; Establish a No-Fly Zone; Establish Buffer Zones; Control Chemical Weapons.
The chairman warned that any decision would need to be weighed carefully and treated as “no less than an act of war.”
McCain and the other Senate Armed Services Committee members previously pressed Dempsey to consider the “costs, benefits and risks associated with training and arming vetted elements of the Syrian opposition? In your view, could such action alone be sufficient to adequately build the military capability of the moderate opposition in Syria and create the necessary conditions for the administration’s stated policy objective - Bashar Assad’s departure and a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria - to succeed?”
Dempsey pushed lawmakers to consider the long-term consequences any military action would mean.
“Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” he replied. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surfaces fires - mortars, artillery and missiles.”
He reminded the committee that virtually every scenario “could also average well over one billion dollars a month” and could provide aid to al-Qaeda or other radical groups. Along with this came a warning of no guarantee that Syrian chemical weapons would be put under an American safeguard.
“Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control,” he wrote. “It would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use.”
RT 

http://on.rt.com/a4to9t