Top US General Says Syrian Rebels Wouldn't Back US Interests, Rejects Military Intervention

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is opposed to even limited U.S. military intervention in Syria because it believes rebels fighting the Assad regime wouldn't support American interests if they were to seize power right now, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to a congressman in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

Dempsey said the military is clearly capable of taking out Syrian President Bashar Assad's air force and shifting the balance of the country's 2 1/2-year war back toward the armed opposition. But he said the approach would plunge the United States into another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.

He effectively ruled out U.S. cruise missile attacks and other options that wouldn't require U.S. troops on the ground.

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Dempsey said in the letter Aug. 19 to Rep. Eliot Engel. "It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not."

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/news/general+says+Syrian+rebels+unready+back+interests+rejects/8813544/story.html

[bemildred]

1. Good. nt

[lark]

2. Whoohoo!!

This action by our government, I can totally celebrate. Obama gets it 100% right. We don't need to be creating more OBL's by funding the wrong folks.

[samsingh]

17. agreed

[cosmicone]

3. Absolutely correct.

Backing the rebels is bad policy.

[pampango]

4. Obama 'opposed to intervention in Syria'

The Obama administration is opposed to even limited US military intervention in Syria because it believes rebels would not support American interests.

The revelation was made in a letter to member of Congress from General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs.

Effectively ruling out US cruise missile attacks and other options that would not require US troops on the ground, Gen Dempsey said the military is clearly capable of taking out Bashar Al Assad's air force and shifting the balance of the the war back towards the armed opposition. But he said such an approach would plunge the United States deep into another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Gen Dempsey said. "It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not."

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/obama-opposed-to-intervention-in-syria

It is true that there are not just two sides since the opposition is fragmented. Nice that we have an administration that does not just start wars to be 'macho' or for some ulterior motive, but actually tries to think through the consequences of military action.

[Arctic Dave]

5. To paraphrase his statement,

"We can't find a suitable lapdog to do our bidding once we destroy the country".

What do you have to say about that Iraq? Libya? Egypt? Pakistan?

[warrant46]

7. "We can't find a suitable lapdog to do our bidding once we destroy the country".

Like

[Arctic Dave]

9. Much the same. nt

[Hydra]

8. That's how I read it too

The next "Freedom Fighter" who offers us the required pound of flesh will be given our full support.

[JoeyT]

14. +1 that's how I read it too. n/t

[samsingh]

18. they to should be cut loose

[leftynyc]

6. Good

There are no good guys in that battle. We should stay out of it.

[Comrade Grumpy]

10. But we will keep providing assistance to the rebels, so Syria can bleed a little longer.

[pampango]

11. And Russia will keep providing assistance to the dictator, so that Syria can bleed a little longer.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. I see your Russia, and raise you a Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

You'll see that, and raise me a Hezbollah and Iran.

I'll counter with Turkey and Al Qaeda.

You've got a full house: Three kings and a pair of jokers.

[pampango]

13. I may have a full house, but still no jets, tanks or anti-aircraft missiles like Russia provides

Assad. I quite sure the dictator would not trade his arms suppliers for those helping the rebels. I suspect that having a monopoly on tanks and jets is a very comforting feeling for a dictator just trying to hold on to the job his dad gave him.

[John2]

16. They have just as

much right to supply the Syrian Government as the U.S. has supplying Israel or Saudi Arabia. Syria has a right to self defense. It is double standards just like Israel hoarding nuclear weapons, and getting information about the technology from the U.S. If it was Syria, The U.S. would have sanctioned Syria, but it was Israel that use espionage against the U.S. It was very convienient just to put one person in jail.

[John2]

15. The General was

speaking to Elliot Engel. Elliot Engel is a Jewish Congressman from New York, that wrote a Bill to invade Syria in 2003. George W. Bush signed it. This all has more to do with Israeli interests. Look up the Bill authorizing regime change in the U.S. Congress. The General probably was trying to please of hold his Bosses at bay. Engel needs to be removed from Congress, simple as that. He also offered a Bill in Congress, that Jerusalem should be Israel's capital and the decision should be left up to them. These people would fire Dempsey if they could. He is the only one keeping us out of another payed for War being pushed by Israel, neocons and the Jewish Lobby in this country. A lot of Americans are afraid to tell the truth.

[jakeXT]

19. He really pissed off Kerry: "Kerry was virtually pounding the table for war in that June 12 meeting"

Did Kerry Call for Bombing Syria?

...


Then we learn, in a piece by Jeffrey Goldberg for Bloomberg, that Kerry was virtually pounding the table for war in that June 12 meeting:

Flash-forward to this past Wednesday. At a principals meeting in the White House situation room, Secretary of State John Kerry began arguing, vociferously, for immediate U.S. airstrikes against airfields under the control of Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime—specifically, those fields it has used to launch chemical weapons raids against rebel forces.

It was at this point that the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the usually mild-mannered Army General Martin Dempsey, spoke up, loudly. According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn’t fully grasp the complexity of such an operation.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/174949/did-kerry-call-bombing-syria#

[dreamnightwind]

20. The real question is

what are "our interests"? Somehow they never articulate that, probably wouldn't look too good if they did.

While I'm glad we're not rushing into this war, supporting only regimes who will support "our interests" is wrong. If we're going to play global cop it can't be all about our own interests, it has to be about humanitarian interests or it has no legitimacy.

And for that matter, the whole global cop thing is where this nation jumped the shark.