Thursday, February 9, 2012

U.S. Begins to Review Military Options in Syria




Although the U.S. focus remains on exerting diplomatic and economic pressure on Syria, the Pentagon and the U.S. Central Command have begun a preliminary internal review of U.S. military capabilities, CNN has learned.



The options are being prepared in the event President Barack Obama were to call for them. Two senior administration officials who spoke about the review to CNN emphasized that U.S. policy for now remains the use of non-military options.



The focus on diplomatic options was underscored by the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.



"Before we start talking about military options, we very much want to ensure that we have exhausted all the political, economic and diplomatic means at our disposal," Ambassador Susan Rice said on CNN's “Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.”



The president has also said that the U.S. is working on non-military options first.



"I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention, and I think that's possible," Obama said in an interview with NBC News that aired during the Super Bowl on Sunday.



But the military is beginning to look at what can be done. One of the senior U.S. officials called the effort a “scoping exercise” to see what capabilities are available given other U.S. military commitments in the region.



Both officials pointed out that this type of planning exercise is typical for the Pentagon, which would not want to be in the position of not having options for the president, if and when they are asked for.



It would be Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, who would provide details on what U.S. military assets are available, what missions they could perform if asked, and what risks U.S. forces might face.



“The Pentagon is closely monitoring developments in Syria. It wouldn’t be doing its job if it didn’t put some ideas on the table,” one of the senior U.S. officials told CNN. “But absolutely no decisions have been made on military support for Syria.”



The two officials were not willing to be identified because they were not authorized to talk to the media.



Typically those types of options are held by the Pentagon as very preliminary plans and not even forwarded to the White House unless asked for. If asked, plans are then fleshed out with specific units to support them.



In this type of analysis being done, the military would typically look at all options ranging from humanitarian relief, to support for opposition groups, as well as outright military strikes, although that is an unlikely option, both officials said.



“This remains a campaign to apply economic and diplomatic pressure,” the first official said.



The military’s work to analyze potential military options for Syria has been quietly going on for several weeks, two administration officials confirm to CNN. The bulk of the analysis is being done by staff of General Mattis, who would be the senior commander if the President were to order any action.



Mattis’ analysis is being shared with General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who would then present options to the White House, if it came to that.



“We don’t want to be in the position of suddenly dusting off some five year old plan,” one official said. The official emphasized the work is extremely preliminary but said the military would look at a full range of contingencies.



Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the Armed Services committee, told reporters Tuesday that the U.S. should consider "all options including arming the opposition."



But U.S. officials said that adding weapons into the volatile and violent situation is not a viable option.



"We never take anything off the table. The president does (or) doesn't. However, as the president himself made absolutely clear and as the secretary has continued to say, we don't think more arms into Syria is the answer," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

14 comments:

David Kelly 6th Period said...

It is not a good idea for the United States to peruse military options in Syria. The U.S. has just pulled out of Iraq. Why should we enter another military battle with another country? We should continue diplomatic options and not act with military force. The people of the United States had been showing their disapproval of the war in Iraq very intensely; they will be even more upset if the United States enters its military into another conflict right after it pulled out of one. As Ambassador Susan Rice said “Before we start talking about military options, we very much want to ensure that we have exhausted all the political, economic and diplomatic means at our disposal". We must ensure that we have tried every option before entering our military in another conflict with another country.

katie-bethwright2 said...

I think they are right i don't think sending armed forces into Syria will solve anything. I think it will make it worse. The residents will feel threatened and might react violently. I think we should find a way to solve this politically.

Winter Chambers 2 said...

I am glad that the military is beginning to look for other options when it comes to dealing with other nations. This country has great political, economic, and diplomatic skills and it is nice to see them being put to good use. Our military is very strong and I do not think we sure always run to them when we are being faced with problems from other nations. At the same time our military needs to continue to be on the alert and ready to perform their duties at any given time, which is exactly what they are doing.

Tyler Conner 1 said...

I do not think they should send military to Syria because we need to start taking care of ourselves, because America is still needing to rebuild itself back up.

BransenHenderson6th said...

It makes sense that the military is looking at what they can do in Syria. It would be good for them to at least have some basic plan so that they are ready for the worst case scenario. Although the best option is still to try to solve things diplomatically and resort to violence as a last measure.

TrevorSmith1st said...

I think it is very smart to try and resolve the issues in Syria through economic, political or diplomatic means before going to the military options. By doing this they will save money and possibly American lives. I also agree that it is not a good idea to add any more wood to this fire, which is what they would be doing if they armed the opposition in Syria.

Victoria Sanchez 2 said...

I'm not very much learned when it concerns the analysis of the military, but if I were to probe this with even the slightest amount of knowledge I would think their review of military options in Syria is a bit questionable. Since when were analysis' like these ever only the method of putting economic and dilomatic stress on an opposing nation? Eventually it all led to something greater than the present claims. I'm not saying I know this to be the real issue, but from a citizens standpoint, this looks more fishy than reporters and the government are giving it credit to be.

Brandon Martinez 1st said...

I think the United Stated is doing what it should be doing in this case. The military is pretty much just dong some routine maintenance. I agree that taking up more arms is a bad idea. That would only escalate the whole situation. I think the United States is getting prepared for the worst. Should all diplomatic solutions fail, the US military will be ready.

LoganBloodworth1st said...

I agree that the United States should avoid using military options within Syria. We're in the begining stages of romoving trrops from Irag and the last thing we need is for anoth country to get angry with us and turn on us, and attack and us end up right back in war. We need to be very careful how we use our military in Syria as of now they seem to be okay with us,but us increasing military power in syria could change all of that.

David Yan said...

Although the United States and most Western countries have called for the resignation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the violence in Syria between Rebel and Pro-regime forces has continued. Although the violence in Syria is undesirable, it is doubtful that the United States would wholeheartedly enter Syria with military forces when most of the population is still hostile to the thought of entering yet another war in this fragile economy.

IsaacAguilera-1 said...

It's amazing how many revolutions have sprouted up in the Middle East over the past year. It looks like the people are finally tired of putting up with those authoritarian regimes' crap. However, those governments aren't going to give up their power so easily. Syria is very unstable right now and barging into the country with tanks and guns may not be the best way to deal with the situation.

Conner Wilkes1 said...

I think that it's good that they aren't taking any options off the table. The U.S. doesn't need to be sending more troops to ANOTHER country. If it does come to military action, they should really try and find the quickest course of action and not drag it out. They need to get in and out and do it effectively.

Conner Wilkes1 said...

I think that it's good that they aren't taking any options off the table. The U.S. doesn't need to be sending more troops to ANOTHER country. If it does come to military action, they should really try and find the quickest course of action and not drag it out. They need to get in and out and do it effectively.

JonLeBau5 said...

Kudos to President Obama who is trying to prevent the use of American troops. After pulling the troops out of the middle east, its awesome to see that, we are not eager to put them back into action. If only all foreign 'situations' could be resolved with diplomatic treaties and such. Obviously there are situations that can't be handled with only the use of words, and the use of cajoling (with the help of the armed forces) is needed. But, if at all possible, this is how it should be done!