Skip to comments.Dempsey: Syrian rebels wouldn't back US interests
Posted on 08/21/2013 3:28:15 AM PDT by cll
WASHINGTON (AP) The Obama administration is opposed to even limited U.S. military intervention in Syria because it believes rebels fighting the Assad regime wouldn't support American interests if they were to seize power right now, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to a congressman in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.
Effectively ruling out U.S. cruise missile attacks and other options that wouldn't require U.S. troops on the ground, Dempsey said the military is clearly capable of taking out Syrian President Bashar Assad's air force and shifting the balance of the Arab country's 2½-year war back toward the armed opposition. But he said such an approach would plunge the United States deep into another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.
"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Dempsey said in the letter Aug. 19 to Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. "It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not."
Dempsey's pessimistic assessment will hardly please members of the fractured Syrian opposition leadership and some members of the administration who have championed greater support to help the rebellion end Assad's four-decade family dynasty. Despite almost incessant bickering and internal disputes, some opposition groups have worked with the United States and other European and Arab supporters to try to form a cohesive, inclusive movement dedicated to a democratic and multiethnic state.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
One leader is golfing and gritting his jaw bone, the other is yachting and enjoying the sea salt.
The US is toast to that region.
Only Israel (and Jordan) are trying to hold on by a thread and the President is doing his best to destroy their confidence in us, not much left, Israel will act alone on Iran while Obama draws another red line and says, “all options are on the table, and I MEAN it”!
Isn’t this the reason Obama GAVE THEM 20,000 MANPADs???
To use against Americans, to kill the ones
Obama and the US Congress cannot?
Running cover for the “one” who armed them and started this mess.
They got plenty pictures of McCain now to shift the blame to him
One of these days Republicans will learn that reaching across the aisle does nothing more than getting them set up for the fall
Yeah ... just what ARE “American interests” anyway ?
Trying to think of a sharper, more on the ball, Joint Chief of Staff that we’ve had in the past. Maybe during the Carter years?
Dempsey sounds (and acts) like a boxer that has gone too many rounds with Muhammad Ali.
mccain is a dim... he parades as a republican but he doesn’t have to reach across the isle... he is always hanging out with the rats and he is already there.
Wow, ya think?? Not sure how many brain cells are required to come to that conclusion. How about getting into the faces of Juan McQueeq and his girlfriend Lispy Grahamnesty and getting them up to speed??
Whew!!! My opinion of our modern generals just rose up a notch. (but only one notch)
Hmmmm....so why were they shipping weapons out of Benghazi to these “rebels” then?
General Dempsey should demote himself to Captain Obvious.
Yes. I was asking that myself. There are American interests and then there are Obama interests. What are the Obama interests? I’d like them to explain that to the public minus the usual fluff and BS.
It’s a little surprising that an official spokesman is acknowledging this, however (that is, assuming Dempsey is speaking officially).
I’ve also read that there is now some reluctance among people in the US government to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, although it must be hard for them to keep Obama, Mr. Muslim Brotherhood himself, from just doing it. You know he wants to...
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
I'm afraid I must disagree. There is a careful screening process for Republicans seeking federal office that ensures the majority are willing and eager patsies. Remember, McConnell and Boehner were elected to leadership by almost unanimous margins.
Agreed but an Assad victory will enable both Hizbollah and Russia to have boots on the ground on Israel’s Golan Heights. That means Hizbollah has Israel covered from the north and northeast.
Without Hizbollah, Assad would have lost already and if he wins, he will be deeply indebted to those animals.
Now, I guess it’s the lesser evil.
Huma is working Weiner’s weiner overtime and Obama must listen to her as an official rep. of the MB in this administration...
Assad also knows that Israel could vaporize Syria if he decides to get aggressive with them. Assad is a survivor; he is not suicidal.
I guess this isn't surprising, considering how virtually everyone was promising that "Arab Spring" uprisings would inevitably lead to western-style Democracy all through the middle East. Maybe reality is starting to set in after seeing what Morsi accomplished in Egypt and the direction in which Libya is now headed.
And I'm sure that the Syrian rebels that you support don't have a single Al Quaeda fighter among them, and righteously refuse any and all arms and funds sent to them by the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabist Saudis. After all, they have Barack Obama, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain to vouch for them!
No, the Syrian, Iranian, and Russian mass-murderers that you and your fellow pro-commie/anti-American/pro-jihadist/anti-Israel FR trolls support are lousy up the eyes with Hizbollah and Syrian killers of American troops going back decades to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and continuing during Syria’s support of the murders of US servicepeople in Iraq and elsewhere.
And no one on FR is surprised in any way by that.
Ha ha. You two are fighting over which of your skunks stinks less.
There's an obvious asymmetry here. You keep repeating that I'm "supporting" Assad, yet I've never once advocated arming or funding him.
In contrast, you actively support arming, funding, and perhaps even sending US troops to fight on behalf of the Syrian rebels. Once again, if I'm a commie agent of Iran for thinking that Assad might be a lesser evil in this civil war, what does that make you for supporting the same side as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda? Mohammed Morsi's lover?
It reminds me of how people like you used to shriek "commie traitor" at those who opposed Clinton's war against Serbia, and accuse such people of being agents of Milosevic. The funny thing was, none of the critics of Clinton's war wanted to arm Milosevic or send troops on his behalf. In contrast, people like you liked nothing more than seeing Hashim Thaqi and the Kosovo Liberation Army (once classified as terrorist by the US state department) armed and funded.
There's a difference though. I'm not denying that Assad is murdering civilians, nor am I advocating active US support for his regime.
Sunken, on the other hand, can't bring himself to admit that the Syrian rebels have Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda among them, and actively supports us arming them or even sending troops to fight alongside them.