US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'

[woo me with science]

US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'

A former US army chief has claimed that Barack Obama is eyeing intervention in Syria that would go beyond a mere deterrent against chemical weapons to damage the military capacity of the Assad regime.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10282697/US-general-says-Syria-action-could-be-more-substantial-than-thought.html
By Hannah Strange, agencies

9:59AM BST 03 Sep 2013

General Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the US Army, told BBC Radio 4 that he had spoken to senior Republican senators who had been briefed by the US president on Monday, and had been assured that Mr Obama planned to do significant damage to the forces of Bashar al-Assad.

The Obama administration has previously said that military strikes would not be aimed at toppling Assad's government nor altering the balance of the conflict. Instead, the White House has suggested, they would be intended to punish Assad for the alleged gas attack in Damascus on Aug 21 and to reinstate Washington's "red line" against the use of chemical weapons.

But Gen. Keane said he understood Mr Obama was planning a more substantial intervention in Syria than had previously been thought, with increased support for the opposition forces, including training from US troops.

He said the plans could involve "much more substance than we were led to believe".

...

[GeorgeGist]

1. Mission Creep

already?

[tridim]

2. "General Jack Keane ... had spoken to senior Republican senators"

That is all you need to know.

[spanone]

3. yep.

[SidDithers]

4. Nailed it...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

7. Obama's seeking support from McCain and Graham for Syria strikes.

It's sort of silly to pretend that there's no cause for concern here.

McCain: Obama to Send New Arms to Syrian Rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584769

Obama, ex-rival McCain united as hawks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580983

For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665

[woo me with science]

9. Remember we were going to be involved with Iraq

for just a few weeks?

[MineralMan]

5. Crappy source. "Former" anything is a clue that what

is being reported is pure speculation. It's important to read such stories carefully. General Keane has no fucking idea what is going on or what is planned, and neither do the Republicans he "spoke to."

[woo me with science]

6. For those doubting if Syria is part of the Neocon Plan

For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665

[ProSense]

8. Are you implying

"For those doubting if Syria is part of the Neocon Plan"

...that Wesley Clark is "part of the Neocon Plan"?

Wesley Clark: Syria vs. Kosovo

Wesley Clark

<...>

As in the case of Syria today, there was no United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing NATO to bomb Serbia. But NATO nations found other ways, including an earlier U.N. Security Council Resolutionpage 105, to legally justify what had to be done. In Syria, the violation of the 1925 Geneva prohibition against the use of chemical weapons is probably sufficient justification. (The fact that Russia used chemical weapons in Afghanistan in the 1980s should be used to undercut Russian objections to strikes against Syria today.)

Kosovo also reminds us that it isn't imperative to strike back immediately after a "red line" is crossed. In 1998, NATO had established a red line against Serb ethnic cleansing; the Serbs crossed that line with the massacre of at least 40 farmers at Racak in January 1999. But NATO didn't strike immediately. Instead, France took the lead for a negotiated NATO presence. This strengthened NATO's diplomatic leverage and legitimacy, even though the talks failed.

<...>

At a time when the U.S. faces many other security threats, not to mention economic and political challenges at home, it is tempting to view action against Syria's regime as a significant distraction. Certainly, it also carries risks. A year after Saddam was bombed in 1993, he deployed Republican Guard Divisions to Iraq's southern border into the same sort of attack positions they had occupied before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. A few years later, the Republican Congress passed, with Democratic support, a resolution advocating "regime change." You can't always control the script after you decide to launch a limited, measured attack.

But President Obama has rightly drawn a line at the use of chemical weapons. Some weapons are simply too inhuman to be used. And, as many of us learned during 1990s, in the words of President Clinton, "Where we can make a difference, we must act."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/08/29/syria-wesley-clark-kosovo-nato/2726733/

Obama Open To Narrowing Language That Would Authorize Syria Strikes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023586008

[jsr]

10. As in, 'more substantial than advertized'

[woo me with science]

11. Indeed.

Deja bullshit.