facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

US: Chemical attacks make Syria a top security risk



Published: Fri, September 6, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

By LARA JAKES

AP National Security Writer

WASHINGTON

For the first time in more than two years of a bloody civil war, President Barack Obama has declared Syria a national-security threat that must be answered with a military strike — and in doing so, he is warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as about Bashar Assad.

America’s credibility with those countries will be an immediate casualty if it stands down now on Syria, administration officials say in making their case for U.S. missile strikes.

After an Aug. 21 chemical-weapons attack outside Damascus, the White House declared Syria’s 2-year-old civil war a top risk to American interests. If the U.S. fails to respond, officials said this week, it could encourage other hostile governments to use or develop weapons of mass destruction without fear of being punished.

It’s a connection that’s not immediately clear to many Americans — especially after the White House refused to send military support earlier in the Syrian war. The recent chemical-weapons attack killed 1,429 people, U.S. intelligence officials say. Other estimates are somewhat lower. The wider war has killed more than 100,000.

In House and Senate hearings this week designed to seek congressional approval to strike Assad’s government — probably with cruise missiles but not with ground troops — top administration officials pleaded with skeptical lawmakers to consider the risks of doing nothing.

“Iran is hoping you look the other way,” Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test. Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will prevail. North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day.”

“They are all listening for our silence,” Kerry said.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel raised the possibility that Assad’s chemical-weapons stockpile, considered one of the world’s largest, could be seized by his allies, including the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah. “We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist groups determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use these chemical weapons,” Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Vali Nasr, a former senior official in Obama’s State Department, said Syria’s spiraling death toll, the rise of fighters in Syria associated with al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and pressure on neighboring nations from a flood of refugees already have threatened U.S. security interests for years.

“For a very long time, we reduced Syria to just a humanitarian tragedy that, as bad as it was, was not a sufficient cause for American involvement,” said Nasr, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “That meant we ignored all the other ways in which Syria was a national-security threat. And for two years, we tried to minimize the impact of Syria, and now all of a sudden, the administration finds itself in the position of having to give sufficient urgency to Syria to justify action.”

Over the past two years, the White House has mightily resisted intervening in Syria’s civil war with U.S. military force. A year ago, Obama signaled the one “red line” exception would be the use of chemical weapons.

At the same time, the U.S. has used a heavy hand in years of negotiations with Iran as world powers try to persuade Tehran to significantly scale back its nuclear program, and seek to prevent its ability to build a bomb.

And Washington repeatedly and sternly has warned North Korea against launching underground nuclear tests and missiles that have rattled its regional neighbors and raised concerns that Pyongyang is building a nuclear-tipped rocket that can reach the United States.

Obama, in Russia on Thursday for a world leaders’ economic summit, has insisted that his red line merely mirrors that of an international treaty banning the use of chemicals weapons. The treaty has been signed by more than 180 countries, including Iran and Russia — two of Assad’s key supporters.

Still, recent polls indicate meager support among Americans for using military force in Syria, and many lawmakers, including Obama’s fellow Democrats, remain unconvinced.


Comments

1Silence_Dogood(1384 comments)posted 1 year, 3 months ago

If the intended purpose of this operation is to prevent future use of chemical and or biological weapons and the President is telling the truth about no "boots on the ground", then there is a serious disconnect between what the President says and the objective. The only realistic way to go about this is the destruction of the weapons stockpiles. The only way this can be done safely (relatively) would be thru the use of aircraft using BLU 119's. The President has stated that we would be using "standoff weapons" only. Well the truth of the matter is that the use of BLU 119's dictates that the aircraft would have to get within 5 to 15 miles of these stockpiles in order to deploy these bombs (dependent on local winds). That by itself would mean that our aircraft would be inside Syrian airspace. In order to do this would require softening up their radar systems using cruise missiles ,that task would take at least a week or more. Even then we would be reluctant to deploy anything other then the B-2's or the F-22's. Both of these aircraft can carry the 119's but we have been reluctant to forward deploy these aircraft due to their advanced technologies. In the case of the 22's we would have to forward deploy due to their short legs, and in the case of the 2's Whiteman Air Force base is a long way off. Limited load capacity of the 22's and the mission duration of the 2's would mean that we would never be able to destroy the numerous weapons caches in a short time period, thereby giving the Syrians more then enough time to disperse these weapons to outlying location. This would make the physical security of these nasty weapons all the more vulnerable to insurgent's getting their hands on them. The scary part is that some of the insurgent's are affiliated with al qaeda a group that would love to get their hands on something as nasty as a chemical weapon. You can be assured that they would use them given the chance, and that is something that we may be embarking on.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes