No troops for Syria for now - Obama

Obama ‘does not foresee’ sending ground troops to Syria

US President Barack Obama said he does not yet picture sending ground troops into Syria, while still maintaining that no options will be disregarded if claims of alleged chemical weapons use by the regime are backed up.

RT,

4 May, 2013

Obama’s announcement came Friday at a news conference in the Costa Rica capital of San Jose, where he said “I do not foresee” such a situation, although the president continued to push for a full inquiry into the recent claims of supposed chemical weapons use by Syria’s Bashar Assad.

Regional leaders whom Obama had consulted on the matter are in agreement with him, he said.

One of the options being penciled is to send arms to the rebels, as was suggested by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Thursday. This is something the US has shied away from for the past two years, since the start of the uprising in Syria, but also a notion that appears to be growing in popularity amongst the US establishment.

Although the US president has come under criticism from Washington critics over his supposedly jumbled approach to Syria, he insisted that the country will not be on the sidelines even as the chemical weapons claims are being verified. The president has consistently noted that any attempts to use such tactics by the regime will be viewed as crossing a “red line” and warrant further action from outside. 

“We’re not waiting…we are working to apply every pressure point that we can on Syria”, he said.

"If in fact there is the kind of systematic use of chemical weapons inside of Syria, we expect we are going to get additional further evidence and at that point we will absolutely present that to the international community," he added.

He also said that any follow-on steps can only be taken after the US has received verifiable information from sources on the ground.

"I'm going to make those decisions based on the best evidence and after careful consultation, because when we rush into things, when we leap before we look, then not only do we pay a price but oftentimes we see unintended consequences on the ground. So it's important that we do it right," the president said.

Officials in the US admit they can only speculate on when any conclusive evidence of chemical weapons use would be made available. For its part Syria’s government denies resorting to such tactics, calling them a fabrication by outside forces.

The rubble of the minaret of Aleppo's ancient Umayyad mosque, in the UNESCO-listed northern Syrian city (AFP Photo)

Lajos Szaszdi, an international affairs and defense analyst, spoke to RT, expressing his doubts on several points.

He believes that although Obama has been shying away from direct US involvement in the 2-year Syrian conflict, America is playing the region like “chess” – trying this or that tactic – all with the ultimate aim of removing Assad, and in so doing, eliminating a major enemy of Israel in the region. It is believed that the escalation towards arming the rebels in the country is really only public relations theater, as no options were ever really off the table.

“What they want is the fall of the government in Damascus, and because all attempts have failed through covert support, now they’re talking about openly, legally providing weapons to the rebels. But there are strong indications that since 2012, if not earlier, weapons have been supplied to the rebels…a covert supply of weapons, of course – through Turkey and with the assistance of Saudi, Qatari and Turkish intelligence services”, Szazdi stressed.

“It’s like a game of chess," he goes on to say. "You eliminate Syria, so you presumably cut off the ties with Iran and Hezbollah and the Iranian influence in the region…and at the same time you eliminate an enemy of the Jewish state. And perhaps, convince the leadership in Israel not to attack Iran, because they got a consolation price, which is the removal of Syria as an existential threat.”

Syria chemical weapons evidence 'too degraded' for proof

British defence secretary Philip Hammond fears West can no longer prove chemical weapons attacks because blood and soil samples 'degrade over time'

the Guardian,

3 May, 2013

Western intelligence agencies fear they can no longer prove for certain whether the Syrian government was responsible for alleged chemical weapon attacks, because initial samples and evidence trails have degraded over time.

Instead, Britain and the US are likely to have to wait for fresh evidence from further attacks before deciding whether to take a military response against the Assad government.

Philip Hammond, the British defence secretary, revealed the shortcomings in recent reliance on soil and blood samples ahead of talks with his US counterpart Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.

"The confidence that we are seeking degrades over time, and in order to have a properly measured chain of custody we would need to obtain samples after an[other] incident," he said in a briefing at the British embassy.

"If chemical weapons use continues, albeit on a small scale, then I am confident that we can detect further use," added Hammond. "The regime will now be focused on the fact that the west will be looking for evidence."

The British and French governments have led pressure on the US to react to three alleged uses of chemical weapons in Syria, but Hammond's admission before talks at the Pentagon is a sign that western governments do not believe they are going to obtain enough evidence to act right now.

On Tuesday, president Obama said the US would be seeking further information to establish who used nerve agents in Syria and in what circumstances.

But Hammond said the process was also complicated because the three alleged uses of nerve gas that Britain claims to have established took place on a small scale.

"Experimental or tactical use of weapons is a challenge for us because it is more difficult to validate," said Hammond.

The British defence secretary also revealed that the primary diplomatic effort was now on persuading the Russian government to end its support for Assad.

"If we can bring the Russians to the point where there is no doubt [over chemical weapons], then there is the prospect of changing the Russian position for support of Syria.

Hammond said the UK had shared its intelligence directly with the five permanent members of the United Nations security council, including Russia.

The US National Security Council has authorised Pentagon planners to work with the UK ministry of defence on developing options for military intervention, but Hammond conceded there was a "low level of public appetite for intervention" in both countries.

This might change, he suggested, if pictures of mass civilian casualties from a fresh chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime began to appear on TV screens around the world.

The most likely military response if the evidence hardens would be a decision to provide rebel groups with weapons.

Britain currently supplies non-lethal assistance such as armoured 4x4s, body armour and night-vision goggles, while countries such as Saudi Arabia are know to have supplied guns. But Hammond said the significance of a US decision to lift an arms embargo would be to provide international "leadership" for the rebels.

The UK believes the biggest problems with this approach are the risk of arms falling into the "wrong hands" and the question of whether such a move would be legal.

"Persuading the Russians that it is in their interests to address this problem is key because clearing this roadblock would allow the UN to become the forum and clear the legality problem," said Hammond. "The Russians are not as immune as they perhaps used to be to the moral issue in the use of chemical weapons."