Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say
By MARK LANDLER, DAVID E. SANGER, THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI
President Obama is ready to pursue a limited military strike even with a
rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, officials said.
Christopher Gregory/The New York Times
President Obama's rationale
for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one that President George
W. Bush confronted 10 years ago.
By MARK LANDLER, DAVID E. SANGER, THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: August 29, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited
military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday,
even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an
increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the
United Nations Security Council.
Related
Times Topic: Conflict in Syria
-
Britain Rules Out Military Strike on Syria (August 30, 2013)
-
Syrians Wait Amid Fear, Anticipation and Long Lines for Groceries (August 30, 2013)
-
Syrian Lawmakers Warn Britain Over Military Strike (August 30, 2013)
Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final
decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as
United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack
that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled
to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.
The White House is to present its case for military action against Syria
to Congressional leaders on Thursday night. Administration officials
assert that the intelligence will show that forces loyal to President
Bashar al-Assad carried out the chemical weapons attack in the suburbs
of Damascus.
The intelligence does not tie Mr. Assad directly to the attack,
officials briefed on the presentation said, but the administration
believes that it has enough evidence to carry out a limited strike that
would deter the Syrian government from using these weapons again.
Mr. Obama, officials said, is basing his case for action both on
safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons
and on the threat to America’s national interests posed by Syria’s use
of those weapons. Administration officials said that threat was both to
allies in the region, like Turkey and Israel, and to the United States
itself, if Syria’s weapons fell into the wrong hands.
M. Obama’s rationale for a strike creates a parallel dilemma to the one
that President George W. Bush confronted 10 years ago, when he decided
to enter into a far broader war with nearly 150,000 American troops in
Iraq — one that the Obama administration says differed sharply from its
objectives in Syria — without seeking an authorizing resolution in the
United Nations. In that case, they said, Mr. Bush was seeking to
overthrow the Iraqi government. In this one, they argue, he is
reinforcing an international ban on the use of chemical weapons, and
seeking to prevent their use in Syria or against American allies,
including Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
Russia and China, Syrian allies and permanent members of the Security
Council, have so far refused to support any military action against Mr.
Assad. But Mr. Obama, his aides say, has reached what one called “a
pragmatic conclusion” that even the most ironclad evidence that chemical
weapons were used would not change Russia’s objections.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more
assertive on Syria even before this incident,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, the
deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said
Thursday in an interview. “The problem is that the Russians won’t vote
for any accountability.”
The decision not to wait for the British Parliament to endorse a strike
is notable, however. Mr. Bush relied on what he called a “coalition of
the willing,” led by Britain. Mr. Obama has made clear that the
initiative here would come from the United States, and that while he
welcomes international participation, he is not depending on the
involvement of foreign forces for what will essentially be an operation
conducted entirely by the United States, from naval vessels off the
Syrian coast.
One central piece of the White House intelligence, officials say, is an
intercepted telephone call in which a Syrian commander seems to suggest
that the chemical attack was more devastating than intended. “It sounds
like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one
intelligence official said Thursday.
Mr. Rhodes and other aides insist that there are major differences from
the decision that faced Mr. Bush in 2003. “There is no direct parallel
with 2003, given that the United States at that time had to prove the
existence of weapons of mass destruction in a country where we were
going to do a military intervention aimed at regime change,” Mr. Rhodes
said.
The current American objective, officials say, is to halt future use of
chemical weapons rather than remove the leadership that allowed their
use. Mr. Obama has referred, somewhat vaguely, to reinforcing
“international norms,” or standards, against the use of chemical
weapons, which are categorized as weapons of mass destruction even
though they are far less powerful than nuclear or biological weapons.
copy http://global.nytimes.com/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário