Obama steps up military aid to Syrian rebels

June 14, 2013 @ 10:35 am


FILE - In this April 30, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama answers questions during his new conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, April 30, 2013. U.S. officials said June 13, 2013, that the Obama administration has concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime has used chemical weapons against the opposition seeking to overthrow him, crossing what Obama called a 'red line'. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File) | Zoom
Related

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's authorization of military aid to the Syrian rebels "dramatically" increases U.S. support for the opposition, the White House said Friday, while acknowledging that it will take time for the supplies to reach fighters struggling in their clashes with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

U.S. officials said the new aid would include weapons and ammunition and comes in response to firmer evidence from the White House of chemical weapons use by Assad's regime.

"There's already material that's been flowing to the opposition and that will continue in the weeks to come," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line," suggesting greater American intervention. While a small percentage of the 93,000 people reportedly killed in Syria are said to have died from chemical weapons _ U.S. intelligence puts the number at 100 to 150 _ the White House views the deployment of the deadly agents as a flouting of international norms.

Rhodes said Obama made the decision to authorize military aid to the rebels over the past few weeks. He also defended the president's caution on the issue, saying "these are not steps the president takes lightly."

The full scope of the assistance authorized by the White House is still unclear. But the administration could give the rebels a range of weapons, including small arms, assault rifles, shoulder-fired rocket-propelled grenades and other anti-tank missiles. The opposition forces could operate most of that equipment without significant training.

In Syria Friday, the Foreign Ministry said, "The White House has issued a statement full of lies about the use of chemical weapons in Syria based on fabricated information. The United States is using cheap tactics to justify President Barack Obama's decision to arm the Syrian opposition."

And in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin's foreign affairs adviser said Russia not convinced with Washington's claim that Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against the opposition. Yuri Ushakov told reporters the information provided by U.S. officials to Russia "didn't look convincing."

Rhodes, in response to Ushakov's comments, said the U.S. had "very firm" evidence, including physiological samples of sarin use.

The commander of the main Western-backed rebel group fighting in Syria said he hoped that U.S. weapons will be in the hands of rebels in the near future, noting it would boost the spirits of the fighters on the ground. "We hope to have the weapons and ammunition that we need in the near future," Gen. Salim Idris told Al-Arabiya TV.

"This will surely reflect positively on the rebels' morale, which is high despite attempts by the regime, Hezbollah and Iran to show that their morale after the fall of Qusair deteriorated," he said, referring to the town near the border with Lebanon.

Obama's opposition to sending American troops into Syria makes it less likely the U.S. will provide sophisticated arms or anti-aircraft weapons that would require large-scale training. Administration officials are also worried about high-powered weapons ending up in the hands of terrorist groups. Hezbollah fighters are among those backing Assad's armed forces, and al-Qaida-linked extremists back the rebellion.

The CIA and special operations trainers are already running some weapons training programs for the rebels and are expected to take charge of teaching the opposition how to use the weapons the U.S. has agreed to supply, another U.S. official said.

There is also some debate within the administration about who would provide the lethal aid and how it might be delivered, the U.S. officials said.

All the officials insisted on anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak on the record about internal administration discussions.

Obama has resisted arming the rebels until now, a cautious approach that underscores the deep divisions within his administration. The proponents of more aggressive action, including Secretary of State John Kerry, appeared to have won out over those wary of sending weapons and ammunition into the war zone.

The U.S. has made no decision on operating a no-fly zone over Syria, Rhodes said.

The U.S. has so far provided the Syrian rebel army with rations and medical supplies. The administration has also agreed in principle to provide body armor and other equipment such as night-vision goggles to the rebels, although the Pentagon has said there has been no movement on that as yet.

Word of the stepped-up assistance followed new U.S. intelligence assessments showing that Assad has used chemical weapons, including sarin, on a small scale multiple times in the last year.

Obama advisers believe Assad's regime still maintains control of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and does not see any evidence that rebel forces have launched attacks using the deadly agents. However, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday that there were some indications that "al Qaida-linked elements" in the opposition have "attempted to acquire chemical weapons for probable use in Syria."

The Obama administration announced in April that it had "varying degrees of confidence" that sarin had been used in Syria. But they said at the time that they had not been able to determine who was responsible for deploying the gas.

The more conclusive findings announced Thursday were aided by evidence sent to the United States by France, which, along with Britain, has announced it had determined that Assad's government had used chemical weapons.

In Brussels, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday, "The international community has made clear that any use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable and a clear breach of international law."

He said he welcomes the "clear U.S. statement" and called on Syria to "grant access to the United Nations to investigate all reports of chemical weapons use."

Obama has said repeatedly that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" and constitute a "game changer" for U.S. policy on Syria, which until now has focused entirely on providing the opposition with nonlethal assistance and humanitarian aid.

The White House said it had notified Congress, the United Nations and key international allies about the new U.S. chemical weapons determination. Obama will discuss the assessments, along with broader problems in Syria, during the summit of eight leading industrial nations next week in Northern Ireland.

Among those in attendance will be Russia's Putin, one of Assad's most powerful backers. Obama and Putin will hold a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the summit, and the U.S. leader is expected to press his Russian counterpart to drop his political and military support for the Syrian government.

The Syrian fighters have been clamoring for bolder Western intervention, particularly given the estimated 5,000 Hezbollah guerrillas propping up Assad's forces. Assad's stunning military success last week at Qusair, near the Lebanese border, and preparations for offensives against Homs and Aleppo have made the matter more urgent.

Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he supported the president's decision "to expand assistance for the vetted Syrian opposition." But other lawmakers expressed reservations, including Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee, Kimberly Dozier, Donna Cassata, Andrew Taylor in Washington, Cassandra Vinograd in London, and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Related:
More National News
Top Stories

  • This Is Reality
    For Seattle's Jason and Molly Mesnick, life is a far cry from the glamour of the 'The Bachelor'

  • Pink Protest
    Taxi drivers are upset about unlicensed ride-sharing companies in Seattle like Lyft

  • Busted
    DNA on Gatorade bottles helps bust Washington's biggest copper theft ever
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (46)


  • Add A Comment

  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    What will your Dear Leader do?
    December 4, 2012 5:39 am
    Nothing! Not a thing other than threats! And America's enemies know this.

    Parrots, remember you voted for this and you got it!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @Lord Ha ha!
    May 2, 2013 2:37 pm
    Do you ever go beyond comments that are no deeper than a bird bath? Why don't you spend your time discussing the subject at hand in detail?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Real Me wrote...
    Dear :Leader, Dear Hypcrite
    June 14, 2013 8:33 am
    With the announcement Thursday that the U.S. will send weapons to rebel forces in the Syrian civil war, President Barack Obama's hypocrisy on war is now complete. When he directed U.S. forces to join the fight against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, President Obama had no authorization from Congress. But he had the support of the UN Security Council, which George W. Bush--as the left constantly noted--did not in Iraq. However, in Syria, President Obama has no formal UN support at all. Though the decrepit UN Human Rights Council has condemned the Syrian government, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay has criticized all external powers supplying weapons to the conflict. The UN General Assembly has only backed a political solution, and with Russia, which backs the regime, in the Security Council there is no chance for action there. None of this is to say that the United Nations should be the judge of whether, when and how the United States uses military force or provides military assistance. Yet that is the standard that Obama and the anti-war left set when opposing the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In praising the war effort in Libya, President Obama has proudly contrasted it to the Iraq War, noting that in Libya the UN guided "the collective will to act." Another criticism then-Sen. Obama made of the Iraq War, notably in his infamous and contrived 2002 anti-war speech, was that it lacked a "clear rationale." The same is certainly true of assistance to the Syrian rebels, which--aside from a desire to end the regime's atrocities, which also applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq--has no clear strategic objective. In fact, entering late, on what is apparently the losing side, poses great strategic problems. In 2002, Sen. Obama also opposed the Iraq War on the grounds that it "will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda." In this case President Obama is not only fanning the flames of sectarian conflict in the Middle East joining a Sunni “jihad” --but is now arming rebel forces dominated by Al Qaeda terrorists. That is, emphatically, the wrong intervention, and will invariably result in blowback as U.S. weapons are turned against Syrian civilians and American allies who stand in the way of Al Qaeda's ambitions in Syria and the region. If there was a time to supply arms to the forces fighting the Assad regime--and, arguably, there was, before Al Qaeda took over the resistance--that date has long since passed. Now, weapons may do more harm than good. One intervention which could force both sides to the negotiating table without arming Al Qaeda and fueling the war is the establishment of a no-fly zone over the country, which would also help stop the Syrian military from using chemical and biological weapons. Again, however, President Obama's delays have proved costly, as Russia has committed anti-aircraft defenses to the regime that could make a no-fly zone harder to maintain. Iran is all-in for the Assad regime, providing weapons, military advisers, and its Lebanese Hezbollah army to the cause. That is why intervention in Syria ought to be part of a broader regional strategy to bring down the Iranian regime. But sending rifles and anti-tank guns to guerillas and thugs is not a tactic equal to the Iranian challenge, and may in fact embolden Tehran. If so, Obama's hypocrisy could have very dangerous consequences.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • CldWtrSrf wrote...
    Good to see it's me is still a War Monger just like
    December 4, 2012 6:49 am
    Obama is. Syria ISN'T fighting a Civil War dummy. They are fighting off Al Qaeda that Obama and the United States are FUNDING and ARMING!! So, America is using the very same Terrorist that they created and used against the Russians, in Bosnia, in Libya then airlifted to Turkey to use in Syria, all the while telling us that we have to give up our RIGHTS so that they can "keep us safe" from those dirty Al Qaeda that actually work for the Pentagon/CIA/U.S. Government. SICKENING!!!! And all you "Good 'Ol Boys" eat it up just like the Obama drones do because it's "their" guy doing it now instead that evil Bush. What a Shed of TOOLS you all are. Wake up and get your heads out of the sand, especially you It's me, CH and longway are lost causes, don't be as moronic as they are.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    CldWtrSrf
    January 10, 2013 10:12 pm
    Do you happen to be Alex Jones? You are claiming that we are in "cahoots" with Al Qaeda? So why did we allow them to crash planes into the Twin Towers? You are telling other to get their heads out of the sand and not be moronic? For some strange reason, paranoid is entering my mind when it comes to you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    Maybe we should send in some Iraqi Kurds to investigate
    March 19, 2013 7:24 pm
    They know a thing or two about WMD's
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    What a frighin mess
    March 19, 2013 9:16 pm
    And Obama is so weak that he actualky thinks Al Qaeda is on the run...HAHAHAhA . Anybody remember the Spring of Democracy? I wonder what label the morons on the Left will come up with this year? I ave a feeling we're headed back into another Summer of Jihad....wonder if the Muslim Brotherhood will come to the rescue with ll the new fighter jets and $250 million in aid we tax Anerican Tax Payers just friiggin handed them.... And Obama closes the White House. Anybody????Good God, this country is being run by EF ing IDIOTS!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    CldWtrSrf, you want to know what the difference is between Bush and Obama?
    March 20, 2013 10:08 am
    I only ask you this because apparently now Bush is on the table for discussion, since you compared him to Obama. The rest of the time, we're not allowed by you right-wingers to bring up that sorry recent history, are we. You'd all rather sweep it under the rug.

    But I digress. So what's the difference?

    Obama doesn't make stuff up to start a war.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    Funny you should say that XCOP, because it's the ten year anniversary of the Iraq war.
    March 21, 2013 12:00 pm
    And as it happens, there's plenty of information to be found on how they cooked the intel.

    For example, here's a 5 minute video of a CIA WMD analyst talking about just that. She has just now gone public with this, I'm guessing because she saw what was done to her colleague Valerie Plame by Cheney and Scooter Libby:

    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/ex-cia-analyst%3A-i-tried-to-make-iraq-war-intelligence-less-bogus/5148f0702b8c2a28e200014c

    In particular, Cheney visited the Pentagon to cherry pick raw intel to try to justify the war. Normally, your supposed to shape policy around the facts. But with the Bush WH, it was the other way around. But I guess those at the CIA who speak out are just CoolAid drinkers too?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Looks like Barry is involving us in ANOTHER war.
    March 25, 2013 1:53 pm
    It's Owebama's fault.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Brian Oblivion wrote...
    The entire population of the middle east
    March 25, 2013 2:09 pm
    save Israel is not worth one drop of American blood. I'm very conservative but totally against any invasion of foreign lands by us. That includes Viet Nam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afcrapistan, Libya, Syria and the rest of Mordor. By the way, CONGRESS voted to invade Iraq, and this neocon nation building crap has to end. It's like trying to put makeup on a pig - doesn't help, and annoys the pig.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Fantastic.
    April 10, 2013 7:58 am
    Send more of my money to Arabs that hate us. Good job.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Whoa...whoa....JORDAN?!?!?!
    April 17, 2013 2:13 pm
    Barry is staring ANOTHER WAR? I thought he was gonna end them ALL? How's that closing of Gitmo going? BWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWWAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH.....!!!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    Gitmo would be closed
    April 28, 2013 12:04 pm
    had the Republitards in congress not gotten in the way. Or are you suggesting Obama should have closed Gitmo without any input from congress? I would have been okay with that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    @HPD 5-0
    April 28, 2013 4:05 pm
    Where are you getting Jordan?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }