BRADLEY KLAPPER 2 hours ago http://news.yahoo.com/dempsey-syrian-rebels-wouldnt-back-us-interests-070802647.html 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 2½-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. 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.
For the thousandth time, notice that we have no interest in backing neither Assad nor the rebels in Syria. Do you still believe the typical ME crapaganda concerning this?
That's not even true. The USA HAS BEEN supporting the "rebels" for a long time now. CLEARLY they have an interesting in supporting them. Why won't the USA attack AQ in Syria, if they claim they are fighting AQ and use that as the excuse for drone strike elsewhere, like in Yemen? But this guy is right, the opposition doesn't support US interests. They are Islamic terrorists who will build a terrorist safe haven with chemical weapons. He is wrong in saying you can support only a certain faction of the opposition. The Islamic terrorists won't just disappear. They will ruthlessly fight till they are in charge. We should leave stable, secular governments intact. Instead we destroy them and that's why extremism is skyrocketing. Everything we do makes it easier for terrorists.
Clearly, we are not. Show me a link that isn't laughably stupid showing that we are shipping weapons and money to the rebels.
USA done what it wanted and their mission is 'almost' complete Al Qaeda installed in Syria Iraq Afghanistan Egypt Libya Yemen Tunisia they just have to get them installed in Lebanon and Iran next
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/18/us-usa-syria-wikileaks-idUSTRE73H0E720110418 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...nd-40-in-non-lethal-aid-to-Syrian-rebels.html http://reliefweb.int/report/syrian-arab-republic/us-set-boost-non-lethal-military-aid-syria-rebels Even Obama/Kerry are open about their support and don't deny it. They declared the opposition the official voice of the Syrian people under the mantra they repeat all the time, "Assad must go." Also, why aren't they attacking AQ that everyone knows have a massive presence in North Syria?
Reuters; Bloomberg; Guardian; NYT; Washington Post; Los Angeles Times; USA Today are those serious enough? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-syria-rebels-without-specifying-details.html http://www.policymic.com/articles/50085/syria-civil-war-arming-syrian-rebels-is-machiavellian-genius That enough? Any laughable?
This presupposes that the Egyptian people are to some extent devoid of responsibility for their own predicament. The fact that you cannot see this, is a reflection of your own sectarianism and insularity. In your world, the masses are merely passive observers against the overriding superiority of powerful state actors that underlies a series of conspiratorial agendas. That is a perfect description of your pessimistic outlook, Abu, and all discerning contributors to this forum know it.
But I can understand your presumption that the US would not be supporting the Syrian rebels. It makes very little sense to do so. One reason is that pointed out in the OP. So why IS the USA supporting the Syrian rebels? 1) Does the US think that they are “the good guys”? If so, what proof is there? 2) Is it a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? Well we all know that that has led to major catastrophes in the past, such as the US support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Do we all hear the alarm bells of history ringing? 3) Or is it a silly case of “Iran supports Assad” therefore “We must support his opposition”. Now that type of lame-brain reasoning caused even greater disasters in the past. Think of Ronnie the Gunslinger’s forays into Central America which are still being felt in a host of CA countries. Yes, I know, I know, they are just a bunch of Guancacas so they don’t matter. Think of the Cuban missile crisis almost igniting WW3. Think of the US support for the Apartheid regime in South Africa. Anyone willing to guess why both Romney and Obama want to support them?
Yes of course we are passive observers! we are all sitting at home the last 2 and half years eating felafel ! next.............
as I already said the American foreign policy is either very evil or very stupid or maybe even both because any sane person (and there are not very many here it seems) knows the USA is a major terrorist power and funder
Then why imply it with your bullcrap conspiratorial tosh that it's the US who has implanted Al-Qaeda in Egypt and that the Egyptians are not themselves partly to blame for the mess that is Egypt? You had a chance to halt the the Zionists in their stride, but such is the sectarian nature of your country, you blew it and you blew it, big time. The revolution is in rewind and the days of Mubarak will return, but WORSE. Such an eventuality cannot be blamed solely on the Israeli's and the American's I'm afraid. It's about time you manned up and accepted some responsibility yourself and as a people. That the Zionists will now exploit the mess in Egypt for their own nefarious ends rests fairly and squarely with the idiots who usurped democracy by ushering the military puppets back into power. That you are an apologist for fascism speaks more loudly than your conspiratorial-based nonsense will ever do.
Can't answer it, can you except to blame the American's, as usual. That's all you ever do. LOL. You deserve what you get. The Egyptian's are the dumbest of the Arabs and the rest of the ME and the wider world will now pay the price for such complacency. Thanks.
Oh come on now.....you know damn well that everything bad happening in the ME can be directly attributed to America.
