|
| FILE - In this Sept. 3, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama speaks in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington. In declaring Syria a national security threat, the Obama administration is warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as about President Bashar Assad. And America’s credibility with those countries will be an immediate casualty if fails to respond to Syria now, administration officials say in making their case for U.S. missile strikes. It’s a connection that’s not immediately clear to most Americans _ especially after the White House refused to send military support earlier in the Syrian war. |
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- For the first time in more than two years of a bloody civil war,
President Barack Obama has declared Syria a national security threat
that must be answered with a military strike - and in doing so he is
warning Americans as much about the leaders of Iran and North Korea as
about Bashar Assad.
America's credibility with
those countries will be an immediate casualty if it stands down now on
Syria, administration officials say in making their case for U.S.
missile strikes.
Following an Aug. 21 chemical
weapons attack outside Damascus, the White House declared Syria's
2-year civil war a top risk to American interests. If the U.S. fails to
respond, officials said this week, it could encourage other hostile
governments to use or develop weapons of mass destruction without fear
of being punished.
It's a connection that's
not immediately clear to many Americans - especially after the White
House refused to send military support earlier in the Syrian war. The
recent chemical weapons attack killed 1,429 people, U.S. intelligence
officials say. Other estimates are somewhat lower. The wider war has
killed more than 100,000.
In House and Senate
hearings this week designed to seek congressional approval to strike
Assad 's government - probably with cruise missiles but not with ground
troops - top administration officials pleaded with skeptical lawmakers
to consider the risks of doing nothing.
"Iran
is hoping you look the other way," Secretary of State John Kerry told
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Our inaction would surely give
them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention,
if not to put it to the test. Hezbollah is hoping that isolationism will
prevail. North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day."
"They are all listening for our silence," Kerry said.
Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel raised the possibility that Assad's chemical
weapons stockpile, considered one of the world's largest, could be
seized by his allies, including the Lebanon-based militant group
Hezbollah. "We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist groups
determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or
use these chemical weapons," Hagel told the House Foreign Affairs
Committee.
Vali Nasr, a former senior official
in Obama's State Department, said Syria's spiraling death toll, the
rise of fighters in Syria associated with al-Qaida and other extremist
groups, and pressure on neighboring nations from a flood of refugees
have already threatened U.S. security interests for years.
"For
a very long time we reduced Syria to just a humanitarian tragedy that,
as bad as it was, was not a sufficient cause for American involvement,"
said Nasr, now dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies. "That meant we ignored all the other ways in
which Syria was a national security threat.
And for two years we tried
to minimize the impact of Syria, and now all of a sudden the
administration finds itself in the position of having to give sufficient
urgency to Syria to justify action."
Over the
past two years, the White House has mightily resisted intervening in
Syria's civil war with U.S. military force. A year ago, Obama signaled
the one "red line" exception would be the use of chemical weapons.
At
the same time, the U.S. has used a heavy hand in years of negotiations
with Iran as world powers try to persuade Tehran to significantly scale
back its nuclear program, and seek to prevent its ability to build a
bomb.
And Washington has repeatedly and
sternly warned North Korea against launching underground nuclear tests
and missiles that have rattled its regional neighbors and raised
concerns that Pyongyang is building a nuclear-tipped rocket that can
reach the United States.
"Iran and North Korea
are carefully watching our next move," Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
R-Fla., said during the House hearing Wednesday. "A refusal to act in
Syria after the president has set such a clear red line will be seen as a
green light by the Iranian regime, who will see that we don't have the
will to back up our words."
The
administration's credibility was already at risk, however, after its
muted response to a series of small-scale chemical weapons attacks this
spring in Syria that killed a few dozen people.
As
a result of those attacks, Obama pledged in June to increase aid to
certain vetted rebel groups fighting Assad in a package that officials
said included some weapons. But the aid did not start flowing until very
recently and, overall, fell far short of being seen as a decisive or
forceful action to punish Assad for the attacks.
Kerry
on Wednesday said the scope of the August attacks - and strong
intelligence indicating that Assad's government was to blame - convinced
Obama that his red line had been crossed. Before now, "the president
didn't want to rush into something," Kerry said.
The
administration is alone in claiming such a high death toll, citing
intelligence reports but refusing to be more specific. The Britain-based
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which collects information from a
network of anti-regime activists in Syria, said over the weekend that it
has been compiling a list of the names of the dead and that its toll
reached 502.
Obama, in Russia on Thursday for a
world leaders' economic summit, has insisted that his red line merely
mirrors that of an international treaty banning the use of chemicals
weapons. The treaty has been signed by more than 180 countries,
including Iran and Russia - two of Assad's key supporters.
Still,
recent polls indicate meager support among Americans for using military
force in Syria, and many lawmakers, including Obama's fellow Democrats,
remain unconvinced.
"I see this potential
bombing campaign as a potential next step toward full-fledged war," said
Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who voted against the Senate panel's plan to
allow military force in Syria.
Alluding to
U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that have cost lives and money for
more than a decade, Udall added: "We have been here before."
Mindful
of the president's intended legacies of ending the war in Iraq and
winding down the one in Afghanistan, the Obama administration recently
has rejected any comparisons to Iraq, pledging that any U.S. military
action will be very narrow and limited in its mission.
But
in pressing the urgency in Syria, the administration reached back to
the specter of 9/11 attacks - which killed almost 3,000 people 12 years
ago next week - as an example of the danger of inaction.
U.S. intelligence officials warned for years before 2001 of a need to curb al-Qaida's threat before it could spread.
"What
can I tell my constituents about why these strikes are in our national
security interest? Why these matter to these folks who are struggling
every day?" Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., asked at the House hearing.
Hagel
cited "a clear, living example of how we are not insulated from the
rest of the world, how things can happen to the United States in this
country if we are not vigilant, and think through these things, and stay
ahead of these things, and take action to prevent these things from
occurring."
"Maybe something would not happen
in this country for a couple of years," Hagel said. "But the 9/11
anniversary, I think, is a very clear example you can use with your
constituents."
