Pentagon Completes Plans for Syria with or without White House Direction
After confusing and conflicting reports last week on whether the Pentagon had contingency plans on hand to deal with Syria militarily, and as the situation worsens in Syria, CNN now reports that the Pentagon has completed “its own planning for how American troops would conduct a variety of operations against Syria, or to assist neighboring countries in the event action was ordered.”
This planning includes, according to CNN, an assessment of what types of units would be needed, how many troops, the cost of certain potential operations and a scenario for a no-fly zone as well as protecting chemical and biological sites.
As to those sites, “The overall assessment by the U.S. is that in the event some action had to be taken to secure Syrian chemical, biological or weapons facilities, troops from some country would have to enter Syria in a matter of hours,” says CNN.
When asked last week what it would take militarily to stop the killing in Syria, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is reported to have said, “I can’t do that …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…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.”
Now, Dempsey appears to have developed such contingency plans with or without specific White House guidance or direction, although “[a] senior U.S. official said the developments have been a matter of discussion in the Obama administration” and, from the same official, “There is a sense that if the sectarian violence in Syria grows, it could be worse than what we saw in Iraq.”
CNN:
The planning comes as the U.S. has become increasingly concerned that the violence in Syria is verging on civil war. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the recent series of bombings have heightened the worry.
Dempsey said it reminded him of the escalating violence during the Iraq war.
The violence “gives us all pause that have been in Iraq and seen how these issues become sectarian and then they become civil wars and then they become very difficult to resolve,” Dempsey told CNN in an exclusive interview on Thursday.
Finally, “The planning, officials insist, is being done protectively and there have been no orders for any action from the White House,” according to CNN.
Read more about such (non-)preparations for possible action in or around Syria here.
Image: www.shutterstock.com
Share This
Related Posts
-
After Boston, Washington’s Next Moves will be Telling (La Jornada, Mexico)
Posted on Apr 17, 2013
-
Secretary of State John Kerry: Busy in Doha (Updates)
Posted on Mar 5, 2013
-
Leon Panetta Honors and Thanks His ‘Dear Friend,’ Hillary Clinton
Posted on Feb 14, 2013
-
French Foreign Policy à la George W. Bush (Liberation, France)
Posted on Feb 3, 2013
There’s no doubt there are contingency plans for all the scenarios listed and they were made years ago and continually updated. We probably have a contingency plan for re-invading Grenada. That’s why DOD has such a big budget.
This could be the military prodding for a decision on a very fluid situation. Or it could be the military tilting toward Romney – very unprofessional. In either case, it is unsettling because it indicates some in the military are chafing under the restraints their civilian authorities impose.
They may have plans, but they will not have the money when the new budget is activated.
And why are we the ones that are expected to protect civilians in Syria. Where is the rest of the world when it comes to helping when times get bad?
I know we ae the biggest and richest, but sometimes the rich uncle gets tired of supporting lazy relatives.
My understanding is that the Pentagon tries to plan for everthing. They are expected to be as ready as possible for any eventuality and they know that planning makes a big difference (that, and logistics, probably sets the US military apart from other more than cool weapons). One thing you see (more often in the international press) is assertions about how the pentagon is planning this or that. The assumption is usually that this means the pentagon is getting ready because it is about to engage in such an action. In reality, they plan for hundreds of things that never came about, and never were likely to come about.
So I would take it as given that the pentagon is planning for Syria. There are mainly two things this tells you. One is trivial, it means that Obama hasn’t told the military “we will never be involved in Syria, don’t spend any time planning for it” (which would be silly enough thing to do). The more substantive one is the source and reason for the “reports” and news stories. The mostly likely situation is that they are trial balloons to see the reaction and one can say that at least a small number of people in the executive branch are in favor of intervention.
“Where is the rest of the world when it comes to helping when times get bad?”
The rest of the world is lined up to help, but being hamstrung by the veto’s of Russia and China as they throw their support behind a fellow dictator.
Thank you slamfu. Then lets let them lead on this issue. Let Saudia Arabia and other gulf nations help militarily. Let the Germans and French send weapons.
Would this ever happen or is it just the USA that has to belly up the support?