Defense Update — Chairman of JCS Critical of Administration’s Lack of Military Direction on Syria (Updated/‘Corrected’ by ‘The Hill’)
U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signs a guest book at the Grand Palace in Bangkok, during his recent visit there. DoD photo by D. Myles Cullen
UPDATE:
The Hill has now “corrected” the story.
Followed by a “Story was corrected at 2:22pm to accurately reflect comments made by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey,” The Hill now has a different version of Gen. Dempsey’s remarks.
The story now titled, “Pentagon planning for Syria on hold, pending White House decision,” offers the following version:
“I can’t do that,” the four-star general said Thursday, when asked what it would take, militarily, to stop the killing of innocent civilians in Syria by forces loyal to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
“The military typically takes the information presented and an outcome. I have to know what the outcome is. So you tell me what the outcome is, I can build you a plan to achieve that outcome,” he told reporters at the Pentagon.
“Anything at this point vis-a-vis Syria would be hypothetical in the extreme, and I can’t build that plan unless I understand the outcome,” the four-star general said.
The Hill then digs up comments made by Dempsey before Congress back in March:
That said, the closest [the] Pentagon has come to any military planning for Syria is providing a “commanders’ estimate level of detail,” Dempsey told Congress in March.
That effort did not consist of “detailed planning” and has not been briefed to the President, the four-star general said at the time. “The next step would be to take whatever options we deem to be feasible into the next level of planning,” the four-star general added.
Finally, The Hill quotes Dempsey’s spokesman, Col. David Lapan, as saying today:
Gen. Dempsey has testified before Congress, and reiterated in several interviews, that our military role is to conduct planning and provide options to the Secretary of Defense and President when requested…Until we are given specific direction to plan for particular scenarios [in Syria], we don’t conduct additional detailed planning.
As mentioned previously, the Department of Defense has not (yet) corroborated — nor offered any comments — on the original The Hill story.
When DoD does so, it will be posted here.
It should be noted that the link to the “corrected” story still reads “http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/231623-dempsey-white-houses-muddled-syria-policy-hindering-military-plans-“
===
ORIGINAL POST:
While the carnage and atrocities continue to mount in Syria, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff claims that the administration’s policy of pursuing diplomatic solutions in Syria while vaguely maintaining the option for military response has put Pentagon planners in a strategic bind, according to The Hill:
In what could be called a highly unusual criticism by the top U.S. military officer, The Hill reports that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told reporters Thursday that efforts to draft a military option for Syria have been stymied by the White House’s seeming lack of focus on what it wants to achieve in the country.
“Tell me that following that regime change [in Syria] you want me to restore order, do nation building [or] stability operations and I know what that looks like,” Dempsey said during a briefing at the Pentagon.
With that kind of information, “I can build you a plan, and I know how many divisions, I know how many air wings … it takes,” he added.
But the four-star general said the Pentagon is not getting that kind of clear-cut direction from the White House, and that is affecting how department officials prepare for whatever contingency may arise in Syria.
“I have to know what the outcome is. You tell me what the outcome is, I can build you a plan to achieve that outcome,” Dempsey said. “I can’t build that plan unless I understand the outcome.”
Dempsey “acknowledged White House efforts to oust Assad via diplomatic means ‘is moving at a pace that is slower than we [or] anyone would want,’” and added, “The pressures that are being brought to bear [against Assad] are simply not having the effect I think that we intend.”
However, The Hill continues, “ the general was adamant that neither he or the Pentagon were ready to forgo diplomatic efforts and focus squarely on military action to remove Assad. “I’m not prepared to advocate that we abandon that track at this point,” he said.
DoD sources have not corroborated this report.
Some military images in the news:
A formation of C-130 Hercules cargo aircraft fly in formation as they return from the Samurai Surge training mission near Mount Fuji, Japan, June 5, 2012. At 12,388 feet, Mount Fuji is the tallest mountain in Japan. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Chad C. Strohmeyer)
During Joint Operations Access Exercise, C-17 Globemaster IIIs drop heavy equipment supplies for an airlift mission on Fort Bragg, N.C., June 4, 2012. A joint operations exercise is a two-week exercise to prepare Air Force and Army service members to respond to worldwide crises and contingencies. (U.S. Air Force photo)
The Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine USS Wyoming (SSBN 742) at sea. Wyoming surfaced to accept Midshipmen for professional training and to conduct a proof of concept for personnel evacacuation from a submarine witha V-22 Osprey. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class James Kimber
Share This
Related Posts
-
(Updates) Breaking News: North Korea May Have Nuclear Missile ‘Within Grasp’
Posted on Apr 12, 2013
-
New Navy Ship Honors 9/11 Pentagon Victims
Posted on Apr 7, 2013
-
(UPDATE) Deployment of Missile System to Guam. Other North Korea Updates
Posted on Apr 3, 2013
-
Women in Combat — In Images
Posted on Mar 18, 2013
From someone who knew what he was talking about:
“No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” Gen. George S. Patton.
I’m wondering if General Dempsey was in on the planning for the invasion of Iraq? I would think that nearly $700 billion dollars a YEAR would cover thinking/planning for any contingency. It’s not like there’s no equipment or troops over there, already.
The Ohioan…When it comes to strategic planning for military operations, money is not part of the planning.
What the military planners need is a clear directive as to what the outcome needs to be and what parameters do they have to operate within. Such as Iraq–Bush 41 clearly told the military to oust Hussian from Kuwait. Once done, stop any further operations. Bush 43 clearly told the military to capture or kill Hussian. And the knew how much power they could use to get it done.
Obama has followed his script with his leadership style (or lack of) by “vaguely maintaining the option for military response has put Pentagon planners in a strategic bind.” Once again he has indicated what he might want, but has not provided the leadership like he has so many times with the debt, deficit, economic policies and healthcare. He had deferred to others without giving clear directives as to the outcome he wants.
I can’t imagine the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff making such as statement, in public, but it begs the question: What would the US be able to do militarily, in light of opposition from Russia and China?
There should be NO military direction when it come to Syria. Any thought of intervention is insanity. It is a civil war, a tribal war and a religious war all rolled into one. It would be incredibly destabilizing for the entire region. Daniel Larison has been making the best arguments against intervention.
There should be no military direction on Syria. It is a tribal war, religious war and civil war rolled into one. Intervention would destabilize the entire region. Intervention would be insanity.
@shough195:
I was equally surprised to read the reported Dempsey comments.
The Hill now has a somewhat different version (See UPDATE above)
However, I am still puzzled at comments about not having done “any military planning” for Syria.
The Pentagon has detailed plans for almost every conceivable conflict or situation.
They are called “contingency plans.”
I have never been to Syria, have not studied Syrian history, do not read Syrian newspapers, and only know one Syrian who sells falafel in a shopping mall near me. Please excuse my ignorance, but I have the sense that most people talking about Syria don’t have more knowledge than I do.
Are we at war with Syria? Are they any kind of threat to us in any reasonable scenario? Who are the rebels? What are the rebels’ objectives and methods? Would we be better off with the current guys or the rebels in control of Syria?
I am not callous to the humanitarian concerns raised by any war, but I think that a lot of fundamental questions should be answered before any military action, and giving arms to one faction is a military intervention.
It would be ok with me if fixing every war on earth was not an American chore.
You make some good points and raise some good questions, Marsman.
My two cents worth is that when such atrocities, such mass murders of innocent men, women and children occur on such a massive scale, we (perhaps just I) expect that those with the knowledge, those with the expertise and above all those with the appropriate means and power (such as our government) to do everything within their power –perhaps short of war — to stop it.
How? That is why we pay our taxes and “hire” all these experts to figure it out.
And, no, it is not America’s “chore” to fix every humanitarian disaster, but we can sure give it a try.
Or, we could close our eyes and then piously say — after the fact — “Never Again.”