Report: Top U.S. General, Kerry Clash over Syria

W460

Top U.S. military officer General Martin Dempsey has clashed with Secretary of State John Kerry over the merits of bombing Syria's regime at a White House meeting, media reported Wednesday.

Kerry reportedly argued for air strikes against regime air bases used to employ chemical weapons against Syrian rebels at a discussion last week in the White House Situation Room, wrote Bloomberg columnist Jeffrey Goldberg, citing unnamed sources.

But Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued stern warnings that air strikes carried grave risks and would require large-scale bombing raids to take out Syria's air defense system, the report said.

"According to several sources, Dempsey threw a series of brushback pitches at Kerry, demanding to know just exactly what the post-strike plan would be and pointing out that the State Department didn't fully grasp the complexity of such an operation," the report said.

U.S. officials acknowledged there were frank discussions and debate over policy on Syria but sought to downplay the report's portrayal of a heated exchange with raised voices.

"The chairman has been open in saying that we need to understand all the options and we need to understand the consequences" of any military action in Syria, a defense official told Agence France Presse.

Dempsey sees his role as offering his best advice on the implications of any military action and had not staked out a position rejecting intervention, the official said.

"He wasn't saying we shouldn't do this," said the official.

The official said the report "overplayed" the emotions, stressing that candid debate in which senior officials weigh the risks and benefits of policy options is "how the the system is supposed to work."

The State Department refused to disclose the details of high-level policy discussions but said the description of the atmosphere at the meeting was off the mark.

"I've seen some of those reports about the tone, which is very inaccurate," spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

Senior diplomats and defense officials "are here to give the president the best advice and debate out the pros and cons of every option," she added.

Dempsey's spokesman, Colonel Dave Lapan, declined to comment on what he termed "classified internal deliberations."

Senior officials attending National Security Council sessions "routinely debate a wide range of options to include how the military can and should support a comprehensive, regional approach to this conflict," he said.

Kerry's preference for stronger action on Syria has been widely reported and public comments by Dempsey have made clear the general's reservations about the potential risks of intervention.

In an interview that aired Monday on PBS television, President Barack Obama expressed skepticism that setting up a no-fly zone in Syria or air strikes could save lives or tip the balance against President Bashar Assad's regime.

Obama said critics urging bold intervention failed to understand there was no simple solution and "if you set up a no-fly zone, that you may not be actually solving the problem."

Comments 6
Thumb jcamerican 20 June 2013, 09:56

They want Bashar to stay.

Missing sikoflebanon 20 June 2013, 16:11

They don't want bashar to stay, they want him to last...
The continuation of the war in Syria is 100% in the US interest on so many levels. Obama proved to be one of the most Machiavellian presidents. All the declared and undeclared foes of the US are in it to the neck in Syria. The trap set for all these (declared and undeclared) has worked perfectly well and is costing the US nothing more than diplomatic efforts and weapons to fuel the war.
By the time the Syrian war is over the following objectives will inevitably be met:

Missing sikoflebanon 20 June 2013, 16:11

- Syria, a country that is part of the resistance axis will be a country of rubble. Financially, the country will need 20 years of aid to go back to the middle ages where it was before the war. Without financial aid, it will go back to the jahiliya.
- Hezbollah was trapped in Syria, no aid came to the rebels before the party's involvement in the war. wondering why? Because it's way too late now for the party to track back and the Syrian sunnis will be following them everywhere with US-made guns and bullets (remember 1983)
- Iran, same as hizbullah, money, troops and weapons while suffocated by sanctions- Russia: money and weapons is not something that's going to hurt Russia, but the international prestige (not high to begin with) is now freefalling, you don't believe it? Look at Putin's picture in the G8

Missing sikoflebanon 20 June 2013, 16:12

- Turkey and Qatar (both undeclared foes who have been working for decades against US interests in the region) are both in the corner now after thinking that they can lead the rebels and win it alone.
- Al-Qaeda and every extremist in the region and outside of it are flocking to take part in the fighting and dying on a land far, far away from any US interest.
...
This is an ideal scenario for the US.
Why stop something that is 10000000% in your interest?

Missing sikoflebanon 20 June 2013, 16:11

- Syria, a country that is part of the resistance axis will be a country of rubble. Financially, the country will need 20 years of aid to go back to the middle ages where it was before the war. Without financial aid, it will go back to the jahiliya.
- Hezbollah was trapped in Syria, no aid came to the rebels before the party's involvement in the war. wondering why? Because it's way too late now for the party to track back and the Syrian sunnis will be following them everywhere with US-made guns and bullets (remember 1983)
- Iran, same as hizbullah, money, troops and weapons while suffocated by sanctions- Russia: money and weapons is not something that's going to hurt Russia, but the international prestige (not high to begin with) is now freefalling, you don't believe it? Look at Putin's picture in the G8

Default-user-icon bobbyL (Guest) 08 April 2014, 09:26

Turkey is not totally our enemy. They have historically been our ally. The muslim leadership is turning the country just like they tried Egypt. Turkey was a cold war friend and still can be if we don't mess it up. Ataturk (their George Washington) forbade war except for being attacked or loss of sovientry, He was peaceful and respected by all of western Turkey. Eastern Turkey is deep in the religion government combo. Ataturk forbade mixing faith and government. The old generals all faithfully kept the country facing west. The present guy is strict muslim and therefore against western life. We should not aid these muslim leaders who only elected the present guy with 25% of popular vote. Do not confuse a pro western population with notion of "enemy"
Turks are honorable people....the secular governed ones are. The strict islamic ones are our foes.