Or so the narrative goes? Wanted to get this up yesterday, still very relevant so better late then not at all Premise Kerry is pushing for upping military aggressivenessPentagon Opposing? Sort of. But not reallyPentagon Opposes Direct Military Intervention Against AssadPentagon opposes DIRECT military intervention? So, how about INDIRECT military invention?
WASHINGTON—Frustrated by the stalemate in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing for the U.S. military to be more aggressive in supporting the country's rebel forces. Opposition has come from the institution that would spearhead any such effort: the Pentagon.
Mr. Kerry and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power have advocated options that range from an American military intervention to weaken the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to using U.S. special operations forces to train and equip a large number of rebel fighters. Such moves would go far beyond the U.S.'s current engagement.
In recent White House meetings, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel have pushed back against military intervention, said senior officials.They say the risk is high of being dragged into an open-ended foreign entanglement.
There is no disagreement on increased intervention- so there is no clash
Both sides have agreed on the need to create an expanded program to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels. But the Pentagon worries the Assad regime would halt cooperation on the removal of chemical weapons if the military training starts now. Officials said Mr. Kerry has now agreed to a delay.
The Pentagon 'worries' that Syrian government would halt cooperation on chems removal? Hooey!And that tired old hawks and doves meme. Yawn.
The disagreement between a hawkish State Department and a dovish Pentagon, the officials from both sides said, is the latest chapter in an agonizing three-year administration debate over Syria.
There is no disagreement. Both sides have agreed on the need to create an expanded program to train and equip moderate Syrian rebels
Current and former State Department officials see the Pentagon's objections as a way of killing proposals without explicitly saying no. Pentagon officials say they are trying to prevent the U.S. from getting sucked into another messy Mideast conflict, a concern that also helps explain President Barack Obama's reluctance to engage more directly in Syria.A senior administration official said top national-security advisers to Mr. Obama have now backed the training proposal in principle as their "consensus recommendation."
It isn't clear where Mr. Obama stands.
It isn't clear where Obama stands? national-security advisers to Mr. Obama have now backed the training proposal in principle as their "consensus recommendation."So where is the disagreement? We have Obama, Kerry and the Pentagon on the same page. All agreeing on the training proposal. Where is the disagreement? Where is the clash?
Top policy makers say the rift echoes similarly fraught Clinton administration debates over the conflict in Bosnia two decades ago.
History repeats?
One reason for the reconsideration was the failure of U.N.-backed negotiations between the Assad regime and the opposition. Another was the slow pace at which Mr. Assad has given up his chemical weapons, part of the deal that deferred the U.S. strikes.
The slow pace at which Syria has given up chemical weapons- I have covered that progress on a number of occasions here and Syria was right on track! Despite numerous rebel attacks on the shipment site. Time for a bit of reality. There are NO moderate rebels. That is a NATO lie.I will underline the facts
The moderate rebels are outgunned on one side by an Assad regime backed by the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, Iran and Russia and on the other by Islamist fighters linked to al Qaeda, the officials say.Mr. Kerry and Ms. Power have told current and former officials the only way to turn the momentum of the war and restart stalled diplomacy would be to put some sort of military intervention on the table.
The NATO backed killers are losing- The only way the US can force the desired regime change is through their demented 'diplomacy'. That concept of diplomacy is so Orwellian considering all the killing Franken Kerry and the murderous Power have endorsed, aided and abetted.
Searching for new options, Mr. Kerry has been huddling with retired generals David Petraeus and Jack Keane, architects of the 2007 troop surge in Iraq. The two generals have told Mr. Kerry they believe a military program to train and equip the Syrian rebels, and limited strikes to weaken Mr. Assad, could be effective, according to U.S. officials.
Does that Kerry huddle scare you? It frightens me. The surge in 07 was a massive pacification (to reduce to a state of submission, especially by military force; subdue) of Iraqis. Massive increase in civilian casualties despite the spin.
Iraqi Deaths Up In October In Blow to US 'Surge' Policy
BAGHDAD - The number of Iraqis killed in insurgent and sectarian attacks rose in October, according to government figures obtained on Thursday, in a blow to a nine-month-old US troop surge policy.
At least 887 Iraqis were killed last month, compared to 840 in September, according to the data compiled by the interior, defence and health ministries. As in previous months, the dead were overwhelmingly civilians, with 758 reported killed against 116 policemen and 13 soldiers.
Back to Syria and the clash that doesn't appear to be
In Situation Room meetings in recent months, Mr. Kerry and Ms. Power have argued for a "military intervention" to change Mr. Assad's calculation and try to push him back to peace talks, which broke down earlier this year.Under the revised arming-and-training proposal, which has been championed by Ms. Power, U.S. special operations forces would take the lead under the CIA's authority, to keep details of the program secret. That would allow the U.S. to work with 600 to 650 rebels each month, more than the limited number working with the CIA now.
According to Sy Hersh the CIA was no longer working with the mercenaries? Really? Hooey, again.
The Pentagon's top leaders agree there is merit to an expanded training effort that could prepare Syrian rebels to conduct raids against government forces, establish safe zones and fight more extremist elements, defense officials said.
Defense officials say Mr. Hagel, while "generally" supportive of military training missions, still has concerns including how the rebels would be vetted.
Hagel worries how rebels would be vetted? No he doesn't. That's just spin. He only cares about getting the job done! If Kerry and Power are looking for a surge, looking for pacification, they don't want nice fellas they want killers and that is all!
Gen. Dempsey worried about the timing of launching such an effort, citing the risk Mr. Assad will stop shipping chemical weapons stocks out of the country in retaliation, a view shared by Mr. Hagel, officials said. "We don't want to give the Syrian government any excuse to back out of their commitment in any way," said a defense official.
Mr. Kerry now shares Gen. Dempsey's concerns about jeopardizing the transfer of Mr. Assad's chemical weapons so he isn't pushing for the military train-and-equip program to start immediately.
Another thing Mr Hersh forgot to mention was the mercs being supported by Israel. As Israel's jihadists gained some ground in Qunaitra- They could not have done it without Israel