US said past point of no return on strike, but timing may snarl plans
Several issues with launching attack in next few days, but waiting too long will open another can of worms, experts say
August 28, 2013, 9:23 pm
1
US
Navy aircraft flying in formation earlier this month. (photo credit:
Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Ramon G. Go/US Navy, Department
of Defense)
Preparations for a highly anticipated strike on Syria could lead to an awkward decision on timing for army planners.
A
senior administration official told NBC News Wednesday that “we’re past
the point of no return” and airstrikes should be expected soon.
But there are few good options for when to attack.
Wednesday, for example, would make for an
uncomfortable juxtaposition of themes: On the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial, Obama pays tribute to Martin Luther King Jr. on the 50th
anniversary of the nonviolent leader’s “I Have a Dream” speech.
Thursday is also problematic. That’s when
British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to convene an emergency
meeting of Parliament, where lawmakers are expected to vote on a motion
clearing the way for Britain to respond to the alleged chemical weapons
attack.
Days later, on Tuesday, Obama embarks on an overseas trip that will take him away from the White House for most of the week.
Would Obama really want to be running a
military operation from Sweden? Or from Russia, which vigorously opposes
action against Syria?
Compounding the pressure, some lawmakers and
allies are urging Obama to proceed slowly and seek UN Security Council
approval, while others are imploring the president to act quickly and
decisively. After all, Obama’s response earlier this year after the US
first concluded that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used chemical
weapons was criticized as too little, too late.
“The longer you wait, the less meaningful it
becomes,” said Barry Pavel, a former top national security official in
the George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
Lawmakers from both political parties have
called on Obama to consult Congress before taking action — a step the
White House says is now underway. Obama also is seeking buy-in from
Western allies such as Britain and France, and from regional
organizations like the 22-member Arab League, which has signaled its
interest in justice for victims of the alleged chemical weapons attacks
and blamed the Syrian regime.
But those consultations, too, limit the haste with which the U.S. can act without going it alone.
Britain added another wrinkle to the
deliberations Wednesday by saying it would seek a UN Security Council
resolution authorizing steps to protect Syrian civilians, although
Britain’s foreign secretary said the world has a responsibility to act
even if the resolution fails; Russia is all but certain to veto it.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
urged against immediate military action, saying UN inspectors need four
more days to complete their work before evidence can be analyzed and
then presented to the Security Council.
Although Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says
the US military is in position to strike as soon as Obama gives the
order, the administration has yet to release a promised intelligence
report formally linking Assad to the attack. That report would provide a
key rationale and underpinning for the administration’s assertion that a
game-changing response was warranted.
The report could be released as early as
Wednesday, the same day as Obama’s speech marking the anniversary of the
1963 March on Washington.
A successful vote Thursday in Britain’s
Parliament would mark the start of short window that national security
experts say could be a less awkward time for Obama to act. But a senior
administration official said once Obama decides on what action to take,
he won’t delay the decision because of outside factors or competing
events.
Obama, on Tuesday, will travel to Stockholm
for his first visit as president to Sweden. The Northern European nation
has claimed a position of neutrality in international conflicts for
about 200 years.
Two days later, he heads to St. Petersburg,
Russia, for the Group of 20 economic summit with leading foreign
counterparts. A major conference intended to focus on wonky issues like
tax evasion and monetary policy could easily be subsumed by a military
incursion in a Mideast hot spot embroiling the U.S. and potentially
other G-20 nations.
What’s more, Russia, the host of the summit,
is staunchly backing Assad and would be among the most vocal opponents
of a military strike in Syria. An American-led attack on Assad’s forces
while world leaders meet in Russia would be a major embarrassment for
the Kremlin, and would deliver yet another blow to shaky relations
between Russia and the US, already at a low point since the recent US
decision to cancel a bilateral meeting between Obama and Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
“The president has to be prepared for a lot of
tension and a high degree of awkwardness,” said Nikolas Gvosdev, a
national security professor at the US Naval War College.
Despite the messy optics, Obama’s foreign
travel next week will not be a factor in his decision about when to act,
said the administration official, who wasn’t authorized to discuss
internal deliberations publicly and requested anonymity. The main factor
in when an action starts will be how long it takes to get it off the
ground once Obama makes the call. An increase in foreign assistance, for
example, would take a while to ramp up, while a military action could
be ordered right away.
There’s precedent for Obama to take military
action while outside the US It was in Brazil in 2011 when Obama, on a
five-day Latin America swing, authorized limited military action against
Libya to counter Moammar Gadhafi’s assault on his own people.
US officials say a response most likely would
involve sea-launched cruise missile attacks on Syrian military targets.
Logistical and military considerations could also play a role in
determining when the U.S. and others take action. Military experts and
US officials said strikes probably would come during the night, a
strategy that could help minimize civilian casualties.
No comments:
Post a Comment