US military completes planning for #Syria
U.S. military completes planning for Syria

U.S. military completes planning for Syria

By Barbara Starr

The U.S. military has completed its own planning for how American troops would conduct a variety of operations against Syria, or to assist neighboring countries in the event action was ordered, officials tell CNN.

In recent weeks, the Pentagon has finalized its assessment of what types of units would be needed, how many troops, and even the cost of certain potential operations, officials tell CNN.

The planning comes as the U.S. has become increasingly concerned that the violence in Syria is verging on civil war. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the recent series of bombings have heightened the worry.

Dempsey said it reminded him of the escalating violence during the Iraq war.

The violence “gives us all pause that have been in Iraq and seen how these issues become sectarian and then they become civil wars and then they become very difficult to resolve,” Dempsey told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.

A senior U.S. official said the developments have been a matter of discussion in the Obama administration.

“There is a sense that if the sectarian violence in Syria grows, it could be worse than what we saw in Iraq,” the official said.

The military planning includes a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites. Officials say all the scenarios would be difficult to enact and involve large numbers of U.S. troops and extended operations.

The planning, officials insist, is being done protectively and there have been no orders for any action from the White House.

The U.S. Navy is maintaining a presence of three surface combatants and a submarine in the eastern Mediterranean to conduct electronic surveillance and reconnaissance on the Syrian regime, a senior Pentagon official said. The official emphasized that the U.S. routinely maintains this type of naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, but acknowledged the current focus is on Syria.

The United States, Britain and France have all been discussing contingency scenarios, potential training and sharing of intelligence about what is happening in Syria with neighboring countries including Jordan, Turkey and Israel. But it is Jordan, so far, that is most seeking the help because of its relatively small military and potential need for outside help if unrest in southern Syria were to impact Jordan’s security.

U.S. special forces are training and advising Jordanian troops on a range of specific military tasks they might need to undertake if unrest in Syria spills over into Jordan or poses a threat to that country, three Defense Department officials told CNN. The officials declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the training. Jordanian officials also are refusing to publicly confirm details, but a senior Middle Eastern government official also confirmed details to CNN.

The U.S. has been training in Jordan using mainly special operations forces under a program called Joint Combined Exchange Training, which sends troops overseas to train foreign soldiers and units in specific missions. Jordan’s major security concern is that if the Syrian regime were to suddenly collapse, then it would face unrest on its northern border, as well as the possibility of large refugee flows, weapons smuggling into Jordan, and potential disarray in Syria’s chemical and biological weapons complex. Jordan also is considering how and where to potentially set up humanitarian assistance bases inside its borders, another matter the U.S. is advising it on.

The Jordanians do not believe regime of Bashir al-Assad would attack them. But they have made it clear to the United States they want the training so they are ready to move quickly if any scenario develops that could destabilize their country, which is already reeling politically from a collapsing economy. While there’s no formal agreement, one of the U.S. officials said the U.S. would come to the defense and support of Jordan in the event any of the Syria scenarios pose a challenge.

While there is no current scenario for putting U.S. troops on the ground in Jordan or Syria, the U.S. could wind up providing air support to move Jordanian troops to the border. In addition, American forces could provide a wide range of intelligence and surveillance capabilities to Jordan so they would have up-to-date information on what is happening on the Syrian side of their border region. In one of the most extreme scenarios, a small unit of Jordanian troops could move into Syria to protect a chemical or biological weapons site.

U.S. satellites are monitoring the chemical and biological weapons sites around the clock, and so far “there is no reason to believe they are not secure,” one of the U.S. officials said.

The U.S. believes the facilities are guarded by some of the most elite Alawite troops loyal to al-Assad. But the official noted that the opposition forces appear to be gaining strength in some areas, and that the United States, Jordan and the allies are concerned that as the amount of al-Assad controlled territory shrinks, some of those critical facilities could be open to attacks, pilfering or efforts by terrorist groups to buy material.

“This is getting a fair amount of attention,” another U.S. official told CNN. Also discussed with Jordanian forces was the possible need for U.S. chemical and biological weapons detecting equipment, the official said.

The overall assessment by the U.S. is that in the event some action had to be taken to secure Syrian chemical, biological or weapons facilities, troops from some country would have to enter Syria in a matter of hours.

This latest training is said to be separate from the recent multinational “Eager Lion 2012” training exercise that took place in Jordan.

During that exercise, U.S. and Jordanian troops also practiced many of the same scenarios, but the JCET training is much more focused, according to the officials.

Military action in #Syria is still an unappealing prospect
William Hague
William Hague, the foreign secretary, said military action in Syria could not be ruled out. Photograph: Dave Thompson/Press Association

William Hague has tentatively raised the prospect of military actionagainst Syria, but the advice from defence chiefs has not changed – and it is stark.

They have warned that Syria cannot be compared to Libya, and that anymilitary action will almost inevitably lead to a more bitter and bloody civil war. They say there is no clear first move; there is no clear exit strategy either.

Which is why the planning that has been undertaken at the Ministry of Defence remains glued to the table and not in any immediate danger of being realised.

Insiders in Whitehall and at Nato’s headquarters in Brussels have been wary this week of speaking about contingencies for military intervention, fearing an unintended momentum might develop towards conflict.

Nato points out that it has not had the political instruction to start war-gaming, and while the MoD does not need this to do its own scenarios and blueprints, the more they do, the less they like what they see.

Even setting aside the legal issues, the military options are defined by the strength and cohesion of Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces, the weakness and fragmented nature of the opposition, and the necessity for Arab League states, and Turkey, to do some of the heavy lifting. “It is much more complicated than Libya,” said one military source. “None of it is easy.”

Assad’s army alone numbers 295,000, and there is an active reserve of more than 300,000. Though nobody is considering this at the moment, a land incursion of any kind would require a monumental effort. And the scale of the regime’s forces suggests arming the opposition militias, even if they were unified, may be impractical.

The creation of civilian havens has been mooted, but these would have to be secured in the first place (almost certainly requiring ground troops), and then defended from attack (almost certainly requiring air power).

In Libya, Nato flew thousands of missions without losing a single aircraft, firing missiles at buildings with little or no retaliation.

Syria, though, has 85 fighters and 240 ground attack aircraft, most of them Russian-made MiG 23s and MiG 21s. They also have attack helicopters and reasonably accomplished air defence weapons, including more than 4,700 surface-to-air missiles.

Drawing on information from the UN and other respected military thinktanks, an Oxfam report published in May said the Syrian government imported $167m-worth of air defence systems and missiles in 2010 – the year before the crackdown began. France has accused Iran of continuing to sell weapons to Assad.

Shashank Joshi, a security and Middle East specialist from the Royal United Services Institute thinktank, said: “Syria’s armed forces are led by Assad family members and clan members. The Syrian military sees a viable state that they can defend, and they see an opposition that is weak. The Syrian regime forces are more powerful, more potent, better trained and better equipped. They have been fighting without having to use air strikes.”

But Joshi said the west needed to start providing proper, viable, options, however difficult they may prove to implement, because Syria was in effect in a state of civil war.

“To a degree, the military has been hiding behind the skirts of the diplomats. The MoD has to be careful because at some point, the politicians might push the diplomats to one side, and they will need to be shown the plans they have on offer.”

Joshi acknowledged the complexity of the situation, but said a range of options, including “the shadow of military force”, needed to be used to increase the pressure on Assad and encourage subversion within the regime.

“There needs to be a credible military threat, and we have to create the appearance, at least, of unity.” Joshi said getting Jordan and Turkey to work together and co-ordinate discussions would help.

Sending a US aircraft carrier group to the region might also concentrate minds in the upper echelons of Assad’s regime, especially if the Kofi Annan peace plans fail.

Joshi said the west also needed to “ramp up its intelligence” on the leading figures in the Free Syria Army. “It’s no good say that we don’t know who they are. We should know who they are.”

U.S. Military beginning review of #Syria options

By Barbara Starr

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.

World must aid Syria’s rebels #Syria

Editor’s note: Shadi Hamid is director of research at the Brookings Doha Center and a fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

(CNN) — A last-ditch effort to put an end to the bloodshed in Syria failed on Saturday, with Russia and China exercising their veto at the United Nations. With that fateful decision, the conflict moved to another, more dangerous stage. Those who warn that Syria will descend into civil war are a bit behind: It is already in civil war. Now it will only intensify.

In the months leading up to the U.N. vote, Syria’s opposition has grown more militarized. Rebel forces, under the banner of the Free Syrian Army, gained considerable traction after a shaky start. The U.N.’s failure to act may have been the best recruiting tool the FSA could have hoped for, and its ascendancy is now a nearly foregone conclusion.

The Syrian regime, however, is making a mockery of the notion, with its brutal assault on the city of Homs just as the U.N. vote was taking place. Either the international community takes r2p seriously, or it doesn’t. We have to decide.

Meanwhile, after first opposing any resort to armed resistance, the Syrian National Council, the country’s most representative opposition body, has made an important shift. It has now “pledged to support” the FSA, and the two groups are attempting to increase coordination.

Where does that leave the international community? The U.N.-endorsed norm of “responsibility to protect” (sometimes boiled down to “r2p”) mandates a collective response when states wage war on their own populations.

As I’ve argued before, military intervention remains premature. But, in light of recent events, the time has come to carefully consider the various military options available, determine their feasibility, and begin to judge whether they would cause more good than harm. Of course, no one should take such intervention lightly. But just as proponents of intervention must make their case for how the military option could “work,” opponents of intervention face a similar burden of explaining how staying the current course will work.

If the opposition itself has chosen the military option — and this seems increasingly the case — then the question is this: Can a ragtag army of perhaps 10,000 Syrian rebels defeat an army that while, far from invincible, enjoys an overwhelming advantage in numbers, equipment and firepower? The opposition may have millions on their side, with Syrians continuing to protest en masse throughout the country. But it’s difficult to see anything less than a disastrous stalemate without the international community helping to tip the balance.

No one, to my knowledge, is advocating for an Iraq-style invasion with tens of thousands of American boots on the ground. The options being considered are far more limited — funding and arming the Free Syria Army, establishing “safe zones” in the north and a targeted air mission to weaken the Syrian military’s capabilities. To be sure, all of these are serious forms of military intervention, but bringing up the specter of Iraq can be misleading, just as it was in Libya.

So we find ourselves in an odd but increasingly common situation, where Syrians themselves are more enthusiastic about foreign military intervention than Americans are. It is, in this sense, the reverse of Iraq, which was rightly seen by many as a tragic Western imposition.

Here, it is Syrians themselves who are pleading for the international community to come to their aid. In December, the Syrian National Council “formally endorsed” foreign intervention. If they formally request military assistance — presumably the next step — we have a moral responsibility to take it seriously.

Unless the Assad regime suddenly implodes — a possibility, but an unlikely one — this is the direction in which we are heading.

The “anti-imperialists” will, as they often do, cry foul. This time, though, they will find themselves on the wrong side. None of the Western powers has come out in even tepid support of military intervention. Consumed by their own internal problems, this is not at all something they want. But it may be something the Syrian people need.

Clinton heads to the U.N. for confrontation on #Syria

Posted By Josh Rogin  

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go the United Nations on Tuesday to press the Security Council to take action regarding Syria, in light of what the State Department is calling a “sharp escalation of regime violence.”

The Arab-European draft resolution was discussed on Jan. 27 behind closed doors at the U.N. Security Council and will see public debate on Tuesday. It calls on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to hand over power to his deputy and says additional measures will be taken if he doesn’t comply within 15 days. In anticipation of that debate, where Russia is expected to staunchly oppose any resolution calling for Assad’s departure, Clinton issued a new statement on the situation inside Syria that many saw as newly aggressive rhetoric from President Barack Obama’s administration.

“In the past few days we have seen intensified Syrian security operations all around the country which have killed hundreds of civilians. The government has shelled civilian areas with mortars and tank fire and brought down whole buildings on top of their occupants. The violence has escalated to the point that the Arab League has had to suspend its monitoring mission. The regime has failed to meet its commitments to the Arab League to halt its acts of violence, withdraw its military forces from residential areas, allow journalists and monitors to operate freely and release prisoners arrested because of the current unrest,” Clinton said in the statement.

“The Security Council must act and make clear to the Syrian regime that the world community views its actions as a threat to peace and security. The violence must end, so that a new period of democratic transition can begin,” she said. “Tomorrow, I will attend a United Nations Security Council meeting on Syria where the international community should send a clear message of support to the Syrian people: we stand with you. The Arab League is backing a resolution that calls on the international community to support its ongoing efforts, because the status quo is unsustainable. The longer the Assad regime continues its attacks on the Syrian people and stands in the way of a peaceful transition, the greater the concern that instability will escalate and spill over throughout the region.”

Clinton’s statement comes after weeks of careful planning inside the Obama administration on when and how to confront the escalating violence in Syria. National Security Council Senior Director Steve Simon had been leading a small interagency team to game out U.S. policy options, but now the administration’s policy machinery has kicked into full gear, meeting often to discuss a range of diplomatic maneuvers that could increase pressure on the Assad regime.

There’s no longer any expectation inside the administration that Moscow will support international action aimed at removing Assad from power, even by non-military means. But the U.N. confrontation is meant to isolate Russia diplomatically and make it clear that the Arab League and its Western friends have exhausted all diplomatic options before moving to directly aid the internal opposition, if that decision is ultimately made.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said on Monday that Clinton, Deputy SecretaryBill Burns, and Assistant Secretary Jeff Feltman have all been working the phones hard to build support for the U.N. resolution. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been “unavailable” while traveling in Australia, even though Clinton has been trying to reach him all day.

“The message that we are sending, the message that the secretary will send tomorrow when she goes to New York, is that the Security Council now needs to act, because the spiral of violence is dangerous not only for Damascus, not only for Syria and all Syrians, but it’s also dangerous in the region, because obviously, you know, we’ve now got a cycle of violence that is quite worrying,” Nuland said.

“You think there is still a path out for the regime?” one reporter asked.

“Well, that’s obviously still on the table,” Nuland said. “It requires Assad to step aside. “