Exclusive: Obama Asks Pentagon For Syria No-Fly Zone Plan

[DonViejo]

Source: The Daily Beast


by Josh Rogin May 28, 2013 3:06 PM EDT

Along with no-fly zone plans, the White House is considering arming parts of the Syrian opposition and formally recognizing the Syrian opposition council, reports Josh Rogin.

The White House has asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for a no-fly zone inside Syria that would be enforced by the U.S. and other countries such as France and Great Britain, two administration officials told The Daily Beast.

The request was made shortly before Secretary of State John Kerry toured the Middle East last week to try and finalize plans for an early June conference between the Syrian regime and rebel leaders in Geneva. The opposition, however, has yet to confirm its attendance and is demanding that the end of Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s rule be a precondition for negotiations, a condition Assad is unlikely to accept.

President Obama’s dual-track strategy of continuing to pursue a political solution to the two-year-old uprising in Syria while also preparing for more direct U.S. military involvement includes authorizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the first time to plan for multilateral military actions inside Syria, the two officials said. They added that no decisions on actually using force have yet been made.

“The White House is still in contemplation mode but the planning is moving forward and it’s more advanced than it’s ever been,” one administration official told The Daily Beast. “All this effort to pressure the regime is part of the overall effort to find a political solution, but what happens if Geneva fails? It’s only prudent to plan for other options.”

Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/28/exclusive-barack-obama-asks-pentagon-for-syria-no-fly-zone-plan.html

[jakeXT]

1. Pentagon is pushing as long as they are ready

Odierno cautioned, however, that training cutbacks due to the sequester mean that, within months, the Army will be less prepared for a ground intervention.

"Its a matter of us having the dollars to make sure they are ready and trained to meet such a contingency in Syria."

"Readiness is OK right now, but it's degrading significantly because our training is reducing. So, the next three, four months, we probably have the capability to do it," he said, of a Syrian incursion. "Next year, it becomes a little bit more risky."

"If you ask me today, we have forces that can go. I think it will change over time because the longer we go cancelling training and reducing our training, the readiness levels go down."

http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/07/odierno_syria_rebels_will_prevail_but_sequester_makes_us_intervention_risky

Pentagon planners also have to consider the effect sequestration and other budget cuts have had on combat readiness. B-52 commanders at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana recently told The Huffington Post that their training hours have been cut back by one-third."If President Obama needed 100 percent of all his (B-52) crew members, he will not have them," Lt. Col. Eric Sikes said.

Having a significant number of air crews without their required training, and aircraft going without required maintenance, Deptula said, "wouldn't make a difference in being able to conduct a couple of strikes. It would make a difference in being able to sustain a no-fly zone."

Another problem for military targeters is that many of Syria's fixed missile sites are located in densely populated residential areas. Syria also boasts mobile missiles, such as the Russian Pantsyr S-1, which are difficult to detect and track. Tracking the missile can be done with unmanned drones or with manned jets built to detect and track radar signatures.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/06/syria-no-fly-zone_n_3223913.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. No. This is an incredibly stupid idea.

I don't vote for war mongerers.

[SkyDaddy7]

31. No, it is not.

I think we should help with a no fly zone so that this thing ends quickly & the suffering can stop. Plus, we need to get on the good side of the Syrian people & support the majority no radical element before the better armed Islamic radicals are strong enough to take over the entire country.

No boots on the ground.

[pampango]

32. Yes it is because it is unlikely to be successful.

Everyone always forgets that if foreigners bomb a hated regime’s installations and accidentally thereby kill large numbers of innocent civilians, the dead civilians show up on the front page and everyone turns against the foreign air force. NATO only avoided this outcome in Libya by staying mostly away from the cities (it did not actually intervene in the Misrata siege). The few bombing raids on Gaddafi’s HQ, the Bab al-Aziziyah, did give the regime some propaganda points, since you can’t bomb downtown Tripoli without casualties.

Finding ways to help the refugees and displaced, and to get food to half-starving neighborhoods in places like Homs, are about the best the US could do. I think we’re on the verge of having a plausible humanitarian corridor in the north, and Jordan is considering a buffer zone in the south. ... sending a lot of weapons into Syria might end the war sooner (or might not; the regime has heavier weapons); but it could also prolong the violence and insecurity in the aftermath.

It is a horrible situation. It breaks our hearts every day. But here as in medicine, the first rule has to be to do no harm, to avoid making things worse. It would be very, very easy to make things worse.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/05/doesnt-intervene-syria.html

[dipsydoodle]

3. How did the UK and France get rowed into this idea ?

.

[geek tragedy]

7. What makes you think they were rowed into it? nt

[dipsydoodle]

12. I don't recall previous mention here of a no fly zone being put in place

by the UK or France - just the possibility of supplying arms to the opposition. Hopefully Russia supplying the S300's will act as a deterrent to implementing a no fly zone - had enough of that fiasco with Libya.

[geek tragedy]

13. UK and France were the ones who dragged the US into Libya.

I suspect they're doing the same here.

[John2]

16. Neither of those

countries' leaders have public support for it in their countries. I can understand the rightwing leader in Britain but not the phony Leftist in France. The rebels asking for this are murderers and terrorists. They are being paid for their actions in Syria. They are losing their little War and need air support from their benefactors. They fabricated the chemical attacks and every thingelse. Some of these fighters are from Libya, Iraq, Croatia and Serbia. The majority of the FSA are Syrian deserters from their military. These people are being paid money from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The U.N. guy that resigned, probably wasn't the preference of those prosecuting their illegal War. The U.N. leader is a puppet from South Korea and bias.

[dipsydoodle]

17. Indeed.

[ucrdem]

30. The UN just unleashed the pit bulls:

WaPo: Britain, France urged to show restraint before arming Syrian rebels

By Anthony Faiola, Updated: Tuesday, May 28, 10:30 AM E-mail the writer

LONDON — A day after securing an end to the European Union’s weapons embargo on Syria, Britain and France are facing criticism from Russia and pressure at home and abroad to show restraint before acting to arm the rebels seeking to oust Syrian ­President Bashar al-Assad.

Britain, along with France, scored a diplomatic victory in Paris on Monday, effectively blocking an attempt by other European nations to extend the regional embargo that has prevented them from sending weapons to help the Syrian opposition. Britain said it has no immediate intention to ship arms, and in Paris and London, Monday’s decision was portrayed as a tool aimed at pressuring Assad to negotiate an end to the conflict.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/britain-france-urged-to-show-restraint-before-arming-syrian-rebels/2013/05/28/abd52376-c78e-11e2-9cd9-3b9a22a4000a_story.html

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. Neocolonial fever dreams...

[bowens43]

4. It begins, Obama wants to play with his army men again........fucking disgusting.

[premium]

5. Do we really want to get involved in this mess?

Why us and not the European countries? They're the ones that have the most to lose. Fuck this shit, just bring our troops home and let's get on with fixing our country instead of attempting to fix other countries, which hasn't gone so well lately.

[KamaAina]

6. Rah! Rah! War! War! War!

[Pragdem]

8. Glad to hear it. nt

[Berlin Expat]

9. No.

[Harmony Blue]

10. I have a feeling that

the west had decided to up the ante since the Russians are not backing down with the S-300 shipment. So sad that everyone is inching closer to war.

[John2]

11. I think if he commits

any U.S. Forces into this conflict, it is an act to aid and abet the overthrow of a Foreign Government, because he doesn't like that Government. I think if he does, it is an abuse of the War Powers Act once again by a U.S. President, other than to defend the United States. He nor those in Congress have public support for it in this country, and I feel those countries, that this aggression is push on by president Obama and his supporters, have every right to defend their Territory.

It illustrates, that lady from code Pinks point about the abuse going on in our Government, when they act without public support and a clear act of defending this country. I think people who disagree with Obama, is going to draw a line in the sand with their Representatives allowing Obama to do this. It will be the down fall of the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections just like with President Johnson. The man is marching to his own tune. There are movements and organizations on the Left, calling out Obama for Guantanamo, and his giving the clearance for Israel to bomb Syria and placing the region into a wider War, which will kill thousands more of innocent people. If the other side responds to Obama's escalation, he will be solely responsible just like George W. Bush and Tony Blair. I read a story about an eight year old Iraqi girl killed by U.S. Bombers and a 12 year old girl lost her limbs. They were not in any military area or around and military target, but was just playing. It was a residential area. I think the supporters of this girl should take Bush to court as a War criminal. I would think the same for Mr Obama and I voted for this man twice.

[stevil]

14. I call this a rumour

Polite way of saying b.s.

[John2]

18. I hope you are right,

but if it is true, I'm through with this man and his phony Party!

[BelgianMadCow]

34. and here is the RT link

Better now?

Officials from the Obama administration have revealed that the White House asked the Pentagon to outline plans for a military no-fly zone over Syria, continuing strategy discussions that have been ongoing for more than a year.

If enacted, the no-fly zone would be enforced by the US military with help from France, Great Britain and other allies.

This update is the latest in President Obama’s strategy to publicly advocate for a negotiated peaceful solution while, after speculating that Syria's President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons, he has reportedly been weighing the benefits of direct military aid to the country's insurgency. Two administration officials, speaking with The Daily Beast, stressed that no military decisions have been finalized.

[pampango]

36. I don't think it is a rumor but all sides are posturing for the upcoming conference on Syria.

All sides are acting tough leading up to this conference.

One side threatens to sell Assad anti-aircraft missiles that he has been trying to buy from them since 1991 with no success. Some doubt that Russia really intends to sell them now and can't deliver them before the conference starts anyway, but it presents a tough image before the conference.

The other side says it is dusting off plans for a no-fly-zone without UN authorization - something that it has studiously avoided doing for 2+ years. Asking the Pentagon to draw up a contingency plan for a NFZ sounds like a diplomatic PR move to sound tough for the conference. The Pentagon has a thousand contingency plans for possible events all over the world. It is hard to imagine that in the past 2+ years no one at the Pentagon has given any thought to how to implement a NFZ if directed to do so.

[MrSlayer]

15. Yay! Let's help MORE al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood types take over!

Iraq was a failure, Afghanistan is a failure, Egypt fail, Libya fail. Let's add another to the list.

What the fuck is going on? Based on previous experiences, we should be backing Assad.

[another_liberal]

19. Russian soldiers killed by Americans . . .

This is not a really great idea. A no-fly zone will have to be enforced by armed aircraft flying over Syrian territory, which is a violation of their sovereignty and just cause for them to shoot those planes down. Add to that situation the fact Russia is now sending advanced anti-aircraft systems to Assad (anti-aircraft systems which will have to be operated by Russians, at least initially) and you have a very good chance Russian soldiers will be killed by Americans. Of course, American pilots may well be killed by Russians in response.

In my considered opinion, that sounds like a damn good way to start the Third World War.

[John2]

20. This is what angers me!

What kind of Universe does these Warmongers think we are in and just what do they think they take us for? Syria and their Allies have every right to respond with military force if necessary! The U.S. has no right to establish any so called safe fly zone for a side in any foreign nation's territory. It is a clear act of aggression! If the Syrian Air Force responds and gets assistance from their allies, this would be a clear escalation of hostilities. It is like a dare, and see if the other side responds. That so called President in the White house is being goaded into a War of no return, listening to Warmongerrs just like President Johnson did. He dissed that lady from code pink, and I'm not part of her organization, but she will gain more recruits. The point is Mr Obama is proving her case against him.

[another_liberal]

21. "Just like President Johnson did."

It sent a chill up my spine just to see someone had typed those words in this context. What godawful waste!

[John2]

22. Whatever you say!

His escalation of hostilities will be based on false pretenses and trying to appease a rightwing Congress. He would be doing everything John McCain wants him to do and the rest of those warmongers. As far as I'm concern, if he claims it is for this country, he is a Liar! It is for Netanyahu.

[quadrature]

23. We always side with the bad guys...

why is that?

[John2]

26. Our Government

does not represent us. It represents the rich and powerful. The popular opinion in this country is against interfering in Syria, including arming the rebels. The problem is, the people supporting it in this country are the rich and powerful people. President Obama only listens to us, when he wants our votes, because they rather have a conservative anyway. If Romney had won, how m,much do you bet U.S. forces would already be in Syria? Netanyahu was Romney's buddy, so he couldn't lose either way. The bad guys are thugs, who want power. The deserters of the Syrian Army claimed they deserted because of atrocities by Assad, but they they are committing atrocities every day on Syrian citizens that don't support them. The latest atrocity was a rape and murder of a Syrian girl alleged by a U.N. representative. The response given was, don't commit it again or we will punish you, carry on with what you are doing.

[Robbins]

24. Oh Great!

He Is listening to war monger Mccain and bringing first step to entering the civil war In Syria.

Here Is a crazy notion.Let's leave them In middle east to kill each other If they want,and worry about things at home.And stay out
of war Inless It directly affects up.

[upi402]

25. too late now

will provoke terrorism and backlash, hot style.

[jessie04]

27. Yes, let's protect al-Qaeda from a genicidal war criminal.

What could go wrong.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Miami Herald piece from earlier this month: Before jumping into Syria, answer these questions.

Before jumping into Syria, answer these questions.

For all the armchair generals advocating U.S. military intervention in Syria, I have a few questions:

Is human suffering the reason for the United States to act? That is the noblest and most altruistic of motives, and the estimated 70,000 lives that have been lost in Syria constitute a tragedy. But is there a numerical benchmark that constitutes a trigger for intervention?

Didn’t genocide in Rwanda claim hundreds of thousands of lives? Didn’t war in the Congo kill an estimated 3 million? Should we have intervened in those conflicts? Should it be U.S. policy to act whenever the toll of death and destruction in any civil war around the world reaches some critical point? Or should we send in the military only when we can see the horror on television?

Is the fact that Bashar Assad possesses chemical weapons — and may have used them — the reason to intervene? President Obama called this a “red line” that must not be crossed, and now critics are pressing him to back up his words. But what do we really know?

Would the intelligence analysts who agree that chemical weapons have been used in Syria be the same intelligence analysts who agreed 10 years ago that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Isn’t it true that Saddam, as it turned out, apparently didn’t even have an active program to obtain WMD?

LOTS more questions at the link. Worth asking, and worth thinking about. Consider them an open book test where the "book" is what we've learned (at least) from the recent Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybian, etc., etc., military interventions/wars.

PB

[Benton D Struckcheon]

29. Puh-leeze

It's a civil war. Do we think ours would have ended any sooner or had a better ending if Britain had intervened on one side or the other? I mean come on.