President Barack Obama: ''I have no interest in any kind of
open-ended conflict in Syria''
President Obama has said he
has not yet decided on a plan for retaliatory action against Syria.
But he said he had concluded Syrian government forces were behind a recent
chemical weapons attack near Damascus. Speaking on US television, Mr Obama said the use of chemical weapons affected
US national interests and that sending a "shot across the bows" could have a
positive impact on Syria's war. His comments follow a day of behind-the-scenes wrangling at the UN. The UK had been pushing for permanent members of the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution which would have authorized measures to protect civilians in Syria.
But Syrian ally Russia refused to agree to the
resolution and the meeting produced no end to the diplomatic stalemate which has
long characterized the UN position on Syria. The US State Department criticized "Russian intransigence" and said it could
not allow diplomatic paralysis to serve as a shield for the Syrian
leadership.
Critics have questioned what purpose a limited strike on Syria could serve, but Mr Obama told the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) it would send the government of Bashar al-Assad "a pretty strong signal that it better not [use chemical weapons] again".
The US has yet to produce the intelligence it says shows Mr Assad's government is guilty of using chemical weapons, and UN weapons inspectors are still investigating inside Syria. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said they need four more days to complete their investigations and has appealed for the team to be "given time to do its job".
Syria denies using chemical weapons and blames opposition fighters for the attack on 21 August, which reportedly killed hundreds of people near Damascus. It accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.
In a sign of growing fears about an impending attack among Syrians, the Associated Press quoted Lebanese officials as saying at least 6,000 Syrians crossed into Lebanon in a 24-hour period through the main Masnaa crossing - compared to a normal daily tally of between 500 and 1,000 refugees.
"Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?" one 45-year-old woman, entering Lebanon with her five children, told AP.
In Damascus senior military commanders are reportedly staying away from buildings thought likely to be targeted. You "could hear a pin drop" at one of them, a local resident said.
President Obama told PBS that the US had "not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place, and hardly anyone disputes that chemical weapons were used in a large scale in Syria against civilian populations".
"We've looked at all the evidence, and we don't believe
the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort," he said. He added he had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the chemical
weapons attack.
"There need to be international consequences, so we are consulting with our allies," he said.
There was "a prospect that chemical weapons could be directed at us - and we want to make sure that doesn't happen". But Mr Obama said he had come to no final decision on what course to take.
In an open letter to the president, US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner demanded he explain "the intended effect of military strikes", and how he would prevent the intervention escalating, if he wanted to win public and congressional backing for action. More than 110 members of Congress have signed a letter formally requesting that Mr Obama seek congressional approval for any action in Syria.
US officials are expected to give senior members of Congress a classified briefing on the evidence that the Syrian government carried out the alleged chemical attack on Thursday.
In Damascus, news agencies, quoting residents and some opponents of the Assad regime, have reported that some heavy weaponry has been moved out of bases and staff have partially vacated some headquarters. It is logical for the Syrian army to have some sort of plan to protect itself from any attack, especially since the progress toward launching a military strike has been discussed so openly by Western powers.
The US has said it will not take action alone - but one
of its primary allies, the UK, has agreed to wait until UN inspectors report
back before taking a final parliamentary vote on potential action. Russia rejected a UK push to try to agree a resolution on Syria among
permanent UN Security Council members on Wednesday, with Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov saying the UN could not consider any draft resolution or proposed action
in Syria before the UN weapons inspectors reported back.
The use of force without a sanction of the UN Security Council would be a "crude violation" of international law and "lead to the long-term destabilization of the situation in the country and the region", Mr Lavrov said.
What, exactly, would a "limited narrow attack" be and how would that accomplish what seems to be the "spanking" you want to give this guy for killing over 1500 of his own Countrymen? Isn't he guilty (if it was him that did this) of a war crime?
ReplyDeleteObama will lose what face he has left if he proposes something to Congress about Syria and they say 'NO' just like the 'BRITs' did. Will he 'RISK' it? This is the first military action that Great Britain has not sided with United States since 1812, is that telling you something?
Obama is pretty much all alone here. Congress, our allies and the American people want no part of Syria. His red line comment is coming back to severely haunt him. Does he go against the grain of the country and allies or does he eat humble pie? There isn't enough teflon to help him here. He has painted himself into a corner and everyone knows it. It will be interesting to see what he decides to do. There is no one to come to his rescue on this one.
Our national interest is not served by an administration that is too afraid of looking weak to back down. It is impossible to predict what might happen if we send missiles into Syria. Our government tends to act , then say oh my, we didn't expect that. In this case in-action trumps all the other choices.
If he acts without congressional approval then yes it would be an impeachable offense, however we have been put in a very tricky circumstance. Take a hardline approach on Syria, suffer the consequences. Step back and take no action, suffer the consequences of regimes now emboldened to use vicious attacks elsewhere in the world. Ultimately there is no right answer and no way we come out clean on this.
My humble opinion
From all the inspectors and observers have reported, it is pretty much 99% sure Mr Assad is responsible for using sarin, a nerve agent. Apparently he has used it before. Could there be anything more reprehensible than what he has done?
ReplyDeleteOn humanitarian grounds alone, Assad should be stopped. Lord knows what atrocities he will inflict upon children next.
Mr Obama indeed painted himself into a corner when he drew his red line. If he does nothing, he will lose all credibility and his word will mean nothing in the future. If he charges into Syria with a full military strike and "boots on the ground", he will be accused of being a George Bush clone.
He is keeping in mind that a couple of very powerful countries are against him doing anything. Russia, in particular has spoken out vehemently against interference. Russia and China together have used their veto to paralyze the UN. David Cameron supports a military strike but the British Parliament voted him down.
Obama has to back up his words with something so, 'If congress approves' and it has given him reason to believe it will, he will authorize a "narrow, limited strike".
Who knows what that means. It may be a single bullet in the right place.
I just wish he wouldn't vacillate on every issue. Your guy is a little wishy washy at times.
No offence intended.
My bumbling opinion