Any US strike on Syria likely to extend beyond Damascus, sources say

The impending U.S. military action in Syria is likely to extend beyond the capital city of Damascus, and would be focused on the delivery systems for the Syrian regime's chemical weapons arsenal, sources told Fox News. 

These systems, and the U.S. military strikes against them, would accordingly include both command-and-control facilities located in the capital but also Syria's short-range missile launchers and artillery positions, which are said to be located in mountainous areas outside of the city.

Bashar al-Assad's presidential palace and Syrian government ministry buildings are not expected to be among the sites the U.S. will strike, the sources said. In part, this reflects the fact that many of the key officials and systems at such facilities have already been evacuated, the sources said.

Senior U.S. officials would not discuss the precise scope or likely targets of the campaign, but did confirm that the targeting of command-and-control facilities and missile and artillery batteries was among the options the Pentagon presented to President Obama. "That fits in with what the president has discussed," a well-placed source said. While officers at U.S. Central Command, which has responsibility for the Syrian theater, await a final decision from the commander-in-chief, they are said to expect the campaign to be "narrowly tailored." 

The Obama administration, however, has yet to settle on a specific course of action, and is said to be waiting for its allies to firm up support for the operation before proceeding. A British draft authorizing approval for such intervention was rejected by the Russians at the U.N. Security Council. Britain and France, which are allied with Washington, are said to be awaiting a report from U.N. weapons investigators following their expected departure from Syria on Saturday. 

The emerging details about the kind of operations the U.S. is planning to conduct was also hinted at in a statement issued this morning by the British government setting forth the legal justification for allied military action in Syria. The statement explicitly noted that the goals of the action include "deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons" by the Assad regime. The disruption of the regime's ability to launch further chemical attacks would necessarily entail attacks on the delivery systems that Mideast sources cited.

Asked on Wednesday if the campaign will seek not only to deter the Assad regime from further chemical attacks by the infliction of "random and wanton pain on the regime" but also by degrading the "physical ability" of the regime to launch such attacks, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf replied: "Those are two goals, I think, that we have."

Obama administration officials have differed, however, in the degree to which they see the upcoming campaign as one that will materially benefit the military standing of the various rebel groups opposing Assad in the Syrians' two-year civil war. Some U.S. officials told Fox News that "of course" the strikes at the regime will be aimed at producing the collateral benefit of inching Assad closer towards being toppled from power, while others cautioned that policymakers are wary of creating the conditions on the ground that would allow the "wrong" rebel groups -- those most closely allied with Al Qaeda -- to sweep into power and gain control of the banned stockpiles that are presently at issue.

The Israeli Defense Forces, meanwhile, are said to have concluded that the likelihood of meaningful retaliatory action against the Jewish state by either the Assad regime or Iranian "proxy" groups, like the terrorist network of Hezbollah, is low. This is because the Syrians are believed to be reluctant to draw Israel into their civil war, and because the Iranians, already mindful of longstanding Israeli threats to strike at the Islamic regime's nuclear apparatus, are likewise believed to be wary of precipitating a confrontation with Jerusalem. 

"We are preparing for [a Syrian or Iranian counter-measure]," an Israeli source told Fox News, "but we are not really expecting it. ... The Iranians are not going to waste their [use of] force for an American attack on Syria."

Sources said the Israelis are among those pressing the Obama administration to act sooner rather than later, citing fears that the "legitimacy" of the operation would be "eroded" by too much delay.

The Saudis, for their part, are said to be running interference for the allies with the Russian government, and to be rallying Arab support by speaking up about the offensiveness of the use of chemical weapons, and by arguing for the attack of Aug. 21 to be met with appropriate punishment. A spokesman for the Saudi government did not immediately return requests for comment.

View the original article here

Allies hold up Syria intervention, Obama takes case to Congress

The Obama administration was running into roadblocks as it tried to corral an international coalition in support of intervention in Syria, with U.S. allies appearing to hit pause on calls for a missile strike. 

Britain and France, which helped lead the 2011 mission to impose a no-fly zone in Libya, on Thursday were still in a wait-and-see mode on Syria, as the countries await the results of a United Nations investigation. 

And unlike with Libya, the U.N. Security Council has so far not approved any action on Syria. The five permanent members reportedly will meet Thursday afternoon to discuss the situation. 

Some of the fiercest deliberations were unfolding in London, where British Prime Minister David Cameron faced down a skeptical Parliament as he tried to make the case for intervention. He has already backed off his goal of holding a single vote on Thursday, allowing for a second vote possibly next week. 

Cameron argued that an attack on Syria in response to chemical weapons use would be legal. Met with skepticism in Parliament, though, Cameron said the motion he's put forward would require Britain to wait until U.N. weapons inspectors report their findings, until "further action" is taken at the U.N., and until another vote is held in Parliament. 

The delay in London could prevent Obama from taking any action, as his administration has said it will not act unilaterally on Syria. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says inspectors are leaving the country on Saturday, meaning any report from them is not likely until next week at the earliest. 

But Obama is facing his own set of problems in Washington, where lawmakers currently on summer recess are beginning to voice serious consternation about the possibility of a missile strike. 

"It is essential that you provide a clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action -- which is a means, not a policy -- will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy," House Speaker John Boehner wrote in a letter to the president on Wednesday. 

Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel were briefing top lawmakers on Thursday, as the military continues to prepare for a possible strike. A fifth Navy Destroyer was sent into the eastern Mediterranean on Thursday. 

One senior Hill aide said there was a concern that launching missiles at Syria could simply be a case of "fire and forget." Further, lawmakers are worried about the potential consequences of a bombing mission. And they want to know the endgame. 

"We don't employ the U.S. military just to make a point," groused one congressional source who asked not to be identified. 

In an interview with PBS on Wednesday, Obama bluntly declared that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack last week. 

He suggested a "shot across the bow" for Syria could be in the interest of U.S. national security. 

But while the administration is expected to release intelligence findings regarding last week's attack as early as Thursday, the Associated Press reported that officials say that intelligence is "not a slam dunk." 

If there is even a shred of doubt that Assad and his top lieutenants ordered the strike last week, Obama is likely to face even more questions from Congress during briefings on Thursday. Many lawmakers are already demanding that he seek a formal vote before moving ahead with any strikes. 

Meanwhile, battle lines are being drawing in the international community. After Russia refused to sign on to a Britain-drafted resolution before the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, Reuters reports that Russia is sending two warships to the Mediterranean Sea, where the U.S. has also positioned ships. The Navy has also boosted its presence in the Persian Gulf, adding one more aircraft carrier. 

Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Obama's got only five options when it comes to Syria

As the Obama administration contemplates a possible military strike against Syria, it would be useful for everyone to take a step back and ponder what we want to accomplish with such an attack.

What are the president’s objectives and how will an attack achieve those objectives? What are his options?

It’s understandable that we want to “do something.” Those pictures of linen-wrapped children, dead from inhaling chemical weapons, are horrifying. But there is only one thing worse than doing nothing – that is doing something that makes things even worse. And whatever we do, our first and foremost goal should be what is best for America.

We have to find a way to get off the Middle East merry-go-round of death and destruction, that Arab oil has chained us to.

So what are the president’s options? Here are five:

Option One: Regime Change. We could launch major attacks and destroy Assad’s war making ability, presumably in conjunction with allies and Syrian rebels, so Assad ends up like Libya’s Qaddafi.  Ironically, Bush administration NeoCons and Obama Interventionists have finally found common cause –  both want to topple Assad. Even President Obama himself said two years ago that Assad "must go."

But, if the last ten years have taught us anything, it should be that toppling dictators doesn’t necessarily lead to something better.

We toppled dictators in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt, and were assured there was a pro-democracy, Western leaning-cadre ready to step in and assume the reins of power.  Iraq led to ten years of bloody war, Libya led to Benghazi and Egypt to a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship.

With Syria, we already know that the rebel groups likely to prevail are Al Qaeda affiliates.  As bad as Assad is, an Al Qaeda-led Syria would be even worse for America.  

It's a cardinal rule of foreign policy that if two of your enemies are trying to destroy each other, don't step in and try to stop them.  If we try to unseat Assad, it's doubtful his Iranian and Russian allies would stand silently by. At a minimum, Iran would redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

Option Two: Limited Attack. We could launch a limited attack to destroy the helicopters and planes that delivered the chemical weapons.  According to press reports, the administration is leaning in this direction.  

It would give Assad a symbolic public spanking, but the civil war would continue, with both sides more or less where they are today.  

It would make good on Obama’s “red line” threat and serve to “punish Assad,” as Secretary Kerry pledged.

The administration is also hoping it would deter Assad, but there is no guarantee he wouldn't use chemical weapons again, since the caches would remain untouched.  It’s just as likely that Assad could decide to double down and use chemical weapons again, thus leaving Obama in the uncomfortable position of having to escalate U.S. involvement.  

It’s possible the president would be faced with the one thing he wants to avoid and the American people deplore – getting involved in another civil war in the Middle East.

Option Three: Arm the Rebels. We could openly arm and train the Syrian rebels to do the job for us.  The question is, which rebels? 

This may have been a viable option two years ago, but today even those in favor of arming the rebels admit that the strongest among the many rebel groups are linked to Al Qaeda.  As dangerous as Assad possessing chemical weapons might be, Al Qaeda having them would be even worse – Al Qaeda has long sought to get its hands on weapons of mass destruction to use against Americans.

If we arm the good rebels, it would be in hopes they could defeat both the Al Qaeda rebels and the Assad government. 

At best, that would put us in the middle of a three-way civil war: we support our rebels, while the Arab oil states support their rebels, and Iran and Russia support the Assad government.  

At worst, the Al Qaeda rebels seize our weapons, and use them first against Assad and then against us?  

Sound farfetched? That’s what happened in Benghazi.

Option Four: Destroy the Chemical Weapons. According to some military experts, we have non-conventional "agent defeat" weapons designed specifically to neutralize chemical weapons without dispersing toxins into the atmosphere.

One type first punctures chemical weapons containers and then smothers the toxins with neutralizing agents before they can be dispersed.  

Other military experts claim these exotic weapons are too experimental, or wouldn’t work, or work only if we first destroyed Syria’s air defenses. They claim if we want to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons, we would need special operations forces, in other words, boots on the ground – an option nobody wants.  In either case, we could end up doing the very thing we’re trying to avoid: killing innocent civilians.

Option Five: Delay, Then Do Something Symbolic. President Obama was elected in part because of his opposition to the Iraq war, and criticism that President Bush’s casus belli, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, never existed.

Every day the evidence seems to mount that the Assad government did use chemical weapons to kill hundreds of innocent women and children.  But the evidence is not incontrovertible, and may never be.  

Obama could decide to wait for more proof. As long as chemical weapons are not used again, the public clamor to ‘do something’ would abate.  The president could then satisfy his “red line” threat by lobbing a few cruise missiles on insignificant targets and call it a day.

But the message would be clear: America’s threats mean nothing. Assad and every other would-be murderous dictator would conclude the international community was unwilling to stop those willing to use weapons of mass destruction. Syria would see no consequence to using use chemical weapons again, and Iran would read it as a green light for their nuclear weapons program.

We are now left with no good choices. Thanks to President Obama’s “red line” threat last year, and his demand that “Assad must go” two years ago, he has put the U.S. between a rock and a hard place. Every parent knows you don’t make threats unless you’re willing to carry them out, since your bluff will always be called.  So it should be a caution to all leaders – words don’t deter, only deeds so.

None of these options are risk free, all of them have potential consequences that would hurt Americans near term and long.  

The best of the bad lot is to find a way to destroy the chemical weapons caches so they can’t be used against us or our allies, without getting pulled into another conflict. We could then leave the Syrian civil war to the Syrians.

Syria sounds eerily like Iraq, and Libya, and Egypt. The same civil strife could be repeated in Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, and maybe even Saudi Arabia in the future.

Syria is the harbinger of a decade, if not a generation, of Middle East conflict as radical Sunni groups square off against radical Shiites. We have to find a way to get off the Middle East merry-go-round of death and destruction, that Arab oil has chained us to.

Fifty years ago President Kennedy committed America to landing a man on the moon within a decade. President Obama should similarly commit America to becoming energy self sufficient and free of Arab oil by the end of his presidency.  

He should approve the Keystone Pipeline immediately, and unshackle our oil and natural gas companies so they can develop America’s domestic energy sources. Not only will it give the American economy a much-needed boost, it will allow America to declare its independence from the internecine wars which have plagued the Middle East since Cain slew Abel.  

If not, America will find itself, time and time again, caught in the middle of the same kind of  ethno-sectarian civil wars that have ensnared us  for the last 20 years. Despite spending trillions of dollars and spilling the blood of thousands of Americans, we remain in servitude to Arab oil. 

Granted, the goal of energy independence may not help President Obama decide between the bad options he faces with Syria today, but the next president, and the one after that, will inherit a far more secure and independent nation.

Kathleen Troia "K.T." McFarland is a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3"-- already one of the Web's most watched national security programs.

View the original article here