ABC News (blog)
|
|
WASHINGTON - As the Syrian
regime and opposition trade accusations over the use of chemical
weapons, the drumbeat in Washington for the United States to get more
directly involved in the two-year old conflict is growing louder.
Drumbeat Grows Louder in Congress for Obama to Act on Syria
Email
Mar 19, 2013 8:55pm
WASHINGTON — As the Syrian regime and opposition trade
accusations over the use of chemical weapons, the drumbeat in Washington
for the United States to get more directly involved in the two-year old
conflict is growing louder.Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain released a statement today, calling for President Obama to act against Syrian President Bashir al-Assad.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the U.S. was looking into claims that the Assad regime had used a chemical weapon in a recent attack in the opposition stronghold of Aleppo. She would not confirm whether the administration believes Syria’s chemical stockpile is secure, citing intelligence reasons, but said there continues to be an increasing concern that Assad will cross that line.
“We’ve been very clear about our concerns that the Assad regime is increasingly beleaguered, that it finds that the violence that it is using by conventional means is inadequate, including its barbaric use of Scuds. And so we are quite concerned that they will resort to other weapons,” she said. “We’ve made clear that this would constitute a red line for the United States. The president could not have been clearer about it.”
But Graham and McCain argue that Assad has likely already crossed the line and they want to see action taken.
“President Obama has said that the use of weapons of mass destruction by Bashar Assad is a ‘red line’ for him that ‘will have consequences,’” the statement reads. “If today’s reports are substantiated, the President’s red line has been crossed, and we would urge him to take immediate action to impose the consequences he has promised.”
The senators are calling for the United States to provide arms to vetted rebel fighters, to launch targeted strikes against Assad’s aircraft and SCUD missile batteries on the ground, and to establish safe zones inside Syria to protect civilians living in opposition controlled areas.
Graham and McCain said time was not on the side of the administration to make sure Syria’s chemical weapons cache does not fall into the hands of terrorists. Graham told Foreign Policy’s The Cable that securing Syria’s chemical weapons needs to be America’s top priority, even if it means sending in U.S. troops to do it.
“I don’t care what it takes,” Graham said. “If the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem.”
Foreign Policy also reported that the top Senate Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, is now in support of establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.
“I believe there should be the next ratcheting up of military effort and that would include going after some of Syria’s air defenses,” Levin said.
America’s European allies Britain and France have called for lifting the UN arms embargo against Syria so that they can legally provide more direct weapon and ammunition help to Syria’s opposition army. Britain announced last week that it will begin proving armored trucks and body armor to rebel fighters.
Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters Monday that the Obama administration is still unwilling to provide anything more than the non-lethal assistance the U.S. is already giving, but will not oppose the actions of other governments.
“President Obama has made it clear that the United States does not stand in the way of other countries that have made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others,” he said.
Kerry acknowledged, however, that the danger of Syria’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of radicals on both sides of the conflict is growing.
“We have consistently said, and I say again, the longer the bloodshed goes on, the greater the prospect that the institutions of the state of Syria implode, and therefore the greater the danger is to the region and the world that chemical weapons fall into the hands of really bad actors,” he said.
Kerry called the two-year conflict, which has killed an estimated 70,000 people and produced nearly 1 million refugees, a “global catastrophe,” admitting that the status quo is not working.
“So as long as President Assad continues to attack his own people with Scuds, with aircraft, with tanks, there is an imbalance in this,” Kerry said. “If he believes he can shoot it out, Syrians and the region have a problem and the world has a problem."
Drumbeat Grows Louder in Congress for Obama to Act on Syria
begin quote from another source:
Later in the evening, the heads of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), joined forces on CNN to say that they believed chemical weapons had likely been used, without offering evidence. They said the White House should consider military action.end partial quote from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/syria-chemical-weapons_n_2911336.html
However, a military strike to get rid of Chemical weapons leaves anyone near those chemical weapons vulnerable to chemical burns, blindness, lung problems or even death. So, for example, if a hellfire missile hit a chemical weapons complex anyone within miles of this depot might not survive it in the days following the missile hit, especially if the wind was blowing lightly into neighboring villages to the chemical arms depot.
Although then there is the counter thought that "What if these chemical weapons are now in the custody of Al Qaeda and headed for Israel or something like that? OR even possibly to Rome, or Paris, or Athens?" So, anyway you look at this it would be a very difficult situation in which some people are going to die from chemicals almost no matter what decision is made. Also, here is another frightening thought since Hizbollah or Hezbollah are now fighting and dying alongside their allies the Assad regime they might also be in control of Chemical Weapons too and Hezbollah being Shia and Al Qaeda being Sunni are bitter enemies now killing each other every day in Syria and likely in Iraq and Lebanon too.
Though this is a nightmare it is not as scary as Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands it still is in at least the category of Cluster bombs and worse.
Another thought about why chemical weapons might be being used by either side. If Assad is using chemical weapons it spells only one thing: Desperation! For example, an Alawite commander might think that using chemical weapons might bring in the U.S., NATO and the United Nations which might save his or her family from genocide by Al Qaeda which is what will happen when the Rebels win.
On the other hand if it was Rebels using chemical weapons it would likely be Al Qaeda or other groups like this trying to scare not only the Assad side but also the world with what they now have. In other words the chemical weapons being used would be an act of terrorism upon the whole world to some degree. And this also would scare The Assad group that this whole thing is completely out of any nations control at that point and they would then know almost anything anywhere could happen next.
Here is a repeat partial quote from Secretary of State Kerry in the first quote:
“We have consistently said, and I say again, the longer the bloodshed goes on, the greater the prospect that the institutions of the state of Syria implode, and therefore the greater the danger is to the region and the world that chemical weapons fall into the hands of really bad actors,” he said.
Kerry called the two-year conflict, which has killed an estimated 70,000 people and produced nearly 1 million refugees, a “global catastrophe,” ------- end quote from first article.
No comments:
Post a Comment