White House denies Obama ad-libbed Syria ‘red line’ on chemical weapons

President Barack Obama answering a question about Syria during a news conference in Costa Rica on May 3. (Pablo …Did President Barack Obama really shock senior aides in August 2012 when he warned Syria publicly that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line"? No, the White House said Monday, rejecting a New York Times report.

"The president's use of the term 'red line' was deliberate and was based on U.S. policy," press secretary Jay Carney told reporters at his daily briefing.

Carney also dismissed claims from a U.N. investigator that Syria's rebels, not President Bashar Assad's forces, used chemical weapons. "We find it incredible, not credible, that the opposition has used chemical weapons," he said. "We think that any use of chemical weapons in Syria is almost certain to have been done by the Assad regime."

His comments came after The New York Times, citing anonymous Obama advisers, had reported Saturday that the president's warning was "unscripted," and "went further than many aides realized he would." It also noted that advisers felt "surprise" and "wondered where the 'red line' came from." The daily cited one aide as saying that "Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the 'nuance got completely dropped.'"

The Times report came with Obama under heavy fire for drawing a "red line"—Syrian strongman Assad's use of chemical weapons against rebels fighting to oust him—but seemingly not responding now that the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that the regime has likely done so.

"What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus," Carney said. "What he never did—and it is simplistic to do so—is to say that 'if X happens, Y will happen.' He has never said what reaction he would take."

Some Republicans have charged that that's precisely the problem, that drawing a "red line" without specific consequences dents America's credibility.

Obama is "looking at a range of options, and he is not removing any option from the table" if it is conclusively proven that Assad's regime used chemical weapons, Carney said.

The press secretary also defended Israel's weekend air strikes in Syrian territory, saying, "It is certainly within their right to take action to protect themselves." Israel reportedly struck arms depots amid concerns that Syria would try to ship some high-tech weapons to Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon who might use them to strike that U.S. ally.

Asked whether the violence in Syria, estimated to have claimed the lives at at least 70,000 people, amounted to genocide, Carney declined to use the term, saying that would be up to the United Nations and relevant courts.

View the original article here

Lawmakers: Syria chemical weapons could menace US

WASHINGTON (AP) — Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons could be a greater threat after that nation's president leaves power and could end up targeting Americans at home, lawmakers warned Sunday as they considered a U.S. response that stops short of sending military forces there.

U.S. officials last week declared that the Syrian government probably had used chemical weapons twice in March, newly provocative acts in the 2-year civil war that has killed more than 70,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands more. The U.S. assessment followed similar conclusions from Britain, France, Israel and Qatar — key allies eager for a more aggressive response to the Syrian conflict.

President Barack Obama has said Syria's likely action — or the transfer of President Bashar Assad's stockpiles to terrorists — would cross a "red line" that would compel the United States to act.

Lawmakers sought to remind viewers on Sunday news programs of Obama's declaration while discouraging a U.S. foothold on the ground there.

"The president has laid down the line, and it can't be a dotted line. It can't be anything other than a red line," said House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "And more than just Syria, Iran is paying attention to this. North Korea is paying attention to this."

Added Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.: "For America to sit on the sidelines and do nothing is a huge mistake."

Obama has insisted that any use of chemical weapons would change his thinking about the United States' role in Syria but said he didn't have enough information to order aggressive action.

"For the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues," Obama said Friday.

But Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, said Sunday the United States needs to consider those weapons. She said that when Assad leaves power, his opponents could have access to those weapons or they could fall into the hands of U.S. enemies.

"The day after Assad is the day that these chemical weapons could be at risk ... (and) we could be in bigger, even bigger trouble," she said.

Both sides of the civil war already accuse each other of using the chemical weapons.

The deadliest such alleged attack was in the Khan al-Assal village in the Aleppo province in March. The Syrian government called for the United Nations to investigate alleged chemical weapons use by rebels in the attack that killed 31 people.

Syria, however, has not allowed a team of experts into the country because it wants the investigation limited to the single Khan al-Assal incident, while U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged "immediate and unfettered access" for an expanded investigation.

One of Obama's chief antagonists on Syria, Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., said the United States should go to Syria as part of an international force to safeguard the chemical weapons. But McCain added that he is not advocating sending ground troops to the nation.

"The worst thing we could do is put boots on the ground," McCain said.

His friend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also said the United States could safeguard the weapons without a ground force. But he cautioned the weapons must be protected for fear that Americans could be targeted. Raising the specter of the lethal bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, Graham said the next attack on U.S. soil could employ weapons that were once part of Assad's arsenal.

"The next bomb that goes off in America may not have nails and glass," he said.

Rogers and Schakowsky spoke to ABC's "This Week." Chambliss and Graham were interviewed on CBS's "Face the Nation." McCain appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."

___

Follow Philip Elliott on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Philip_Elliott

View the original article here

Red line: Obama cautious on Syria chemical weapons

WASHINGTON (AP) — Proceeding cautiously, President Barack Obama insisted on Friday that any use of chemical weapons by Syria would change his "calculus" about U.S. military involvement in the 2-year-old civil war — but said too little was known about a pair of likely sarin attacks to order aggressive action now.

The president's public response to the latest intelligence reflected the lack of agreement in Washington over whether to use America's military to intervene in the civil war, — and if so, how. But lawmakers in both parties expressed concern that inaction could embolden Syrian President Bashar Assad and perhaps other countries including North Korea and Iran.

U.S. officials declared on Thursday that the Syrian government probably had used chemical weapons twice in March, newly provocative acts in the civil war that has killed more than 70,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands more. The U.S. assessment followed similar conclusions from Britain, France, Israel and Qatar — key allies eager for a more aggressive response to Syrian conflict.

Obama, in his first comments about the new intelligence disclosure, said Friday, "For the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues." He has issued similar warnings for months, saying the use of chemical weapons or transfer of the stockpiles to terrorists would cross a "red line" and carry "enormous consequences."

Seeking to show resolve, Obama added Friday that "I've meant what I said."

The president is facing political pressure from a familiar contingent of senators, led by Arizona Republican John McCain, favoring a quick and strong U.S. response. But even those lawmakers appear opposed to an American military invasion and are instead supporting creation of a protective "no-fly zone" or another narrow, safe zone inside Syria, along its border with Turkey.

Some lawmakers voiced concern that if Obama doesn't make good on his promise to respond aggressively if it's shown that Assad used chemical weapons, his inaction could send a damaging message to the world.

"There's no question that when the United States takes a position that this crosses a line that our failure to respond has implications," said Rep. David Cicilline, a Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "So that if we, in fact, determine that chemical weapons were used, I think the expectation is that we and the coalition and others take some action."

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., wondered whether the red line was "turning into a pink line."

White House officials insisted Obama's caution was not an indication that the line was shifting. Officials said firm evidence of a chemical weapons attack would trigger a U.S. response — unspecified — and would not be contingent on the size and scope of the use.

Obama met at the White House with Jordan's King Abdullah II, whose nation is suffering amid an influx of refugees spilling over its border with Syria. The president promised to vigorously pursue more information about chemical weapons attacks, including exactly who might be responsible and how they might have been carried out.

But the president set no deadline for answers.

"The president wants the facts," spokesman Jay Carney said. "And I'm not going to set a timeline because the facts need to be what drives this investigation, not a deadline."

Syrian officials denied Friday that their government forces had used chemical weapons against rebels.

Hanging over the Obama administration's approach to the new intelligence reports are hard lessons learned from the Iraq war, when faulty intelligence drew the U.S. into a lengthy and expensive conflict. Obama, as a candidate for U.S. Senate, opposed the Iraq war and made ending the conflict a priority in his first term.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill appeared to be drawing on similar lessons from more than a decade ago. Many who sounded the alarm about Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction — and strongly stood with President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq — were far more muted on Friday.

Following a closed-door briefing by Secretary of State John Kerry, they stressed the importance of building international support for any military move against Syria rather than unilateral U.S. action. The sectarian strife in Iraq and the lawlessness in Libya after the killing of longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 stand as sober reminders of what can happen.

"We want to do everything we can to avoid putting boots on the ground," said Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House intelligence committee. "I don't think that we, just as the United States, want to go in to another war."

Polling shows war-weary Americans are broadly opposed to the notion of the U.S. military intervening in Syria. Just one in five said the U.S. has a responsibility to do something about the fighting in Syria, according to a CBS News poll conducted in late March.

But faced with more specific scenarios, Americans appear more willing to back U.S. involvement. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll late last year, 63 percent said they would support military intervention if the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people.

Roughly the same number said they would support using American military aircraft to create a no-fly zone if no ground troops were involved.

The White House faces a limited choice of military options to help the rebels oust Assad.

Arming the rebels would run into the reality that a military group fighting alongside them has pledged allegiance to al-Qaida. Establishing a no-fly zone poses a significant challenge, as Syria possesses an air defense system far more robust than the U.S. and its allies overwhelmed in Libya two years ago.

Thus far, the Obama administration has limited its assistance to the Syrian rebels to nonlethal aid, including military-style equipment such as body armor and night vision goggles. The U.S. has also deployed about 200 troops to Jordan to assist that country's military, and has participated in NATO's placement of Patriot missile batteries in Turkey near the border to protect against an attack from Syria.

___

Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC and Donna Cassata at http://twitter.com/DonnaCassataAP

___

AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and AP writer Bradley Klapper contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Iraq looms large as wary Obama warns Syria over chemical weapons

President Barack Obama during his meeting Friday with King Abdullah II of Jordan. (Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP …“A whole bunch,” meet “systematic.” President Barack Obama's cautious stance on the conflict in Syria shone clearly Friday as he warned President Bashar Assad that “the systematic use” of chemical weapons against Syrian rebels would trigger a forceful American response.

Back in August, Obama bluntly warned Assad’s regime that while he had not “at this point” ordered an American military response to Syria's civil war, “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

When it comes to chemical weapons, what is "a whole bunch"? What does "systematic" mean? The White House has carefully refused to define either term precisely, keeping the president's options open. Republicans have called for a far more forceful U.S. role in Syria, notably by arming the rebels and establishing "safe zones" to protect the opposition or Syrians fleeing the fighting.

In 2008, Obama used his opposition to the Iraq war—and Hillary Clinton’s initial support for it—as a potent weapon to capture the Democratic presidential nomination. The flawed case for toppling Saddam Hussein looms large now as the president wrestles with the U.S. response to signs that Assad’s iron-fisted regime used chemical weapons in Syria’s two-year civil war. The conflict has claimed the lives of an estimated 70,000 people.

“I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations,” Obama said as he met Friday in the Oval Office with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

The president’s comments came a day after Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the White House revealed that U.S. intelligence believed Assad had used chemical weapons, specifically the deadly nerve agent sarin, against opposition forces in the country's ongoing civil war.

On Thursday, the White House disclosed that "our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence" that Assad's regime had used sarin. But top officials—from Hagel on down—warned that those findings did not mean that Assad had now crossed Obama's "red line" or that American military action might be imminent. Instead, they said Washington will now work with its allies, Syria's opposition and the United Nations to build what one top Obama aide called an “airtight” case.

"These are preliminary assessments; they’re based on our intelligence gathering. We have varying degrees of confidence about the actual use, but there are a range of questions around how, when, where these weapons may have been used," Obama said Friday, vowing "to make sure that we are investigating this as effectively and as quickly as we can."

"But I meant what I’d said, and I will repeat," he said. "Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed, to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law. And that is going to be a game changer."

"We have to act prudently. We have to make these assessments deliberately. But I think all of us, not just in the United States but around the world, recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations," he said.

Just how big a factor is the March 2003 invasion of Iraq? A senior Obama aide, briefing reporters Thursday on a conference call arranged by the White House, made repeated references to it as a reason to tread cautiously.

“I’d say that given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction, it’s very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to present information that is airtight in a public and credible fashion," he said. "That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded."

View the original article here

Hagel, Dempsey Detail US-Jordan Contingency Planning on Syria's Chemical Weapons

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey both warned Congress on Wednesday about the unintended consequences of a U.S. military intervention in Syria. Hagel also provided the first details of the Pentagon's efforts in assisting Jordan's military for the possibility of having to secure Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, including $70 million worth of training and equipment.

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee both Hagel and Dempsey cautioned that a U.S. military intervention in Syria could have unintended consequences and should be reserved as a "last resort."

Two years of fighting to bring down the regime of Syrian President Basher al Assad have killed an estimated 70,000 Syrians and created a million refugees. Both Democratic and Republican senators on the committee have advocated the Obama administration consider some form of U.S. military assistance to assist the Syrian opposition in the form of a no-fly zone or the establishment of a humanitarian aid corridor.

"We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of direct U.S. military action in Syria," said Hagel. He added that "military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment."

More importantly he warned that it could have "the unintended consequence of bringing the United States into a broader regional conflict or proxy war. " He stressed that "the best outcome for Syria - and the region - is a negotiated, political transition to a post-Assad Syria."

He later used blunter language in describing how all factors should be weighed in considering a U.S. military option in Syria. "You better be damn sure, as sure as you can be, before you get into something, because once you're into it, there isn't any backing out, whether it's a no-fly zone, safe zone, protect these - whatever it is. Once you're in, you can't unwind it. You can't just say, well, it's not going as well as I thought it would go, so we're going to get out.

Gen. Dempsey also told the committee that " before we take action, we have to be prepared for what comes next." He noted that the use of force in an area like Syria where the ethnic and religious divisions "dominate" is "unlikely to produce predictable outcomes." He explained that such a scenario "is not a reason to avoid intervention in conflict, rather, to emphasize that unintended consequences are the rule with military interventions of this sort."

In his opening remarks Hagel presented the most detailed outline yet of American efforts in helping Jordan prepare for the possibility of having to secure the Assad regime's large chemical weapons stockpile should the regime collapse. For much of the past year Pentagon officials have declined to provide details about such efforts, instead making vague references about contingency planning with regional partners for such a scenario.

Hagel told the committee that the Pentagon "has plans in place to respond to the full range of chemical weapons scenarios." He disclosed that the U.S. has provided $70 million in funding to Jordan "for training and equipment to detect and stop any chemical weapons transfers along its border with Syria, and developing Jordanian capacity to identify and secure chemical weapons assets."

However, when Sen. John McCain asked Gen. Dempsey if he was confident that American troops would be able to secure Syria's chemical weapons, Dempsey said, "Not as I sit here today, simply because they've been moving it and the number of sites is quite numerous."

According to Hagel, the U.S. military has also prepared for other contingencies such as " the potential spillover of violence across Syria's borders that could threaten Allies and partners." Furthermore, he said, the Pentagon had "been developing options and planning for a post-Assad Syria," though he said he was not able to provide details in public.

Hagel also announced that last week he ordered the deployment to Jordan of a headquarters element from the 1 st Armored Division based at Fort Bliss, Texas.

They will replace the several hundred American military members from various units who have been in Jordan since last summer working with the Jordanian military in contingency planning related to Syria's chemical weapons, humanitarian efforts and preventing a spillover of violence from Syria into Jordan.

A Defense official said the headquarters will provide "a cohesive command and control element with our Jordanian counterparts." The official also said that if needed its structure would enable it to "be capable of establishing a Joint Task Force headquarters that would provide command and control for Chemical Weapons response, humanitarian assistance efforts and stability operations."

Hagel also referred to the other forms of assistance the U.S. is providing to Syrian refugees and opposition groups. That includes $385 million in assistance to help ease the humanitarian and refugee crisis in Syria, as well as $117 million in non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition in the form of communications and medical equipment.

The Defense secretary told the committee that he would be visiting Jordan next week as part of a Middle East tour that will see him making stops in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Also Read

View the original article here