Pentagon Says 75,000 Troops Might Be Needed to Seize Syria Chemical Arms

[unhappycamper]

http://dailyqueernews.com/wordpress/archives/7436


Pentagon Says 75,000 Troops Might Be Needed to Seize Syria Chemical Arms
DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT | New York Times | November 15, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops, amid increasing concern that the militant group Hezbollah has set up small training camps close to some of the chemical weapons depots, according to senior American officials.

The estimated size of the potential effort, provided to the White House by the military’s Central Command and Joint Staff, called into question whether the United States would have the resources to act quickly if it detected the movement of chemical weapons and forced President Obama, as he said in August, to “change my calculus” about inserting American forces into Syria. So far Mr. Obama has avoided direct intervention into the most brutal civil conflict to emerge from the Arab Spring uprisings, and the Pentagon assessment was seen as likely to reinforce that reluctance.

The White House on Thursday declined to comment on the Defense Department’s assessment.




unhappycamper comment: 75,000... 75,000... Where have I heard that before?
.
. googling
.
.
.
.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/02/romneys-plan-could-put-75000-troops-syria/49091/

Romney's Plan Could Put 75,000 Troops in Syria
John Hudson 1,691 Views Feb 23, 2012

Wednesday night's GOP debate saw a lot of tough talk when it came to intervening in Syria, but a new report by the U.S. Central Command gives an ominous view of what destabilizing the Assad regime could mean for U.S. troop deployments. During the debate, Mitt Romney publicly backed arming the Syrian rebels in a deal brokered by the U.S. with its Middle East allies. "We need to work with Saudi Arabia and with Turkey to say, 'You guys provide the kind of weaponry that's needed to help the rebels inside Syria,'" the former Massachusetts governor said. But destabilizing President Bashar al-Assad's regime risks a different kind of threat that could embroil thousands of U.S. troops: The securing of Syria's chemical warfare facilities.

According to a new report by CNN, the U.S. military has calculated that more than 75,000 grounds troops would be required to secure Syria's chemical sites if they were left unguarded or looted. The estimate was calculated by U.S. Central Command as it's tasked with considering different military responses to an escalation in Syria. Currently, the Assad regime maintains control of its chemical facilities but that could change as rebels jockey for power. And securing the country's chemical stockpile would be particularly important given its size and the risk of it falling into the hands of extremists.

"Syria probably has one of largest programs in the world," Leonard Specter of the Monterey Institute of International Studies tells CNN. "It has multiple types of chemical agents." He ticked off a number of dangerous gases including nerve gas and World War I-era gases such as chlorine and phosgene.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Congress about the very real threat of the weapons getting into the wrong hands. "There would be kind of a vacuum that would lend itself to extremists operating in Syria, which is particularly troublesome in light of the large network of chemical warfare, (chemical biological weapons), weapon-storage facilities, and other related facilities that there are in Syria."

[xchrom]

1. that's some co-inky dink there. nt

[dipsydoodle]

2. Yes - I recall Iraq having one of largest programs in the world too.

[KansDem]

3. Okay...whatever...

“There is credible information that the Assad regime has been upgrading and expanding its chemical weapons arsenal, which needs to be maintained,” said Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. “A credible delivery capability is also needed, hence the North Korean angle.”

Do we have the intelligence right this time?

...The Pentagon ...

And where will the generals be partying?


And once we get "boots on the ground," how many years, if not decades, will be required to "train a security force?"

I can't believe we're falling this this shit again...