You’ve heard this before. Worries about the proliferation of dangerous weapons and the erratic behavior of a dictator prompt the U.S. to consider putting boots on the ground. Iraq?
Try one country over.Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.
Try one country over.Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.
A U.S. Army chemical weapons crew takes samples from an M55 rocket. Photo: U.S. Army
You’ve heard this before. Worries about the proliferation of dangerous weapons and the erratic behavior of a dictator prompt the U.S. to consider putting boots on the ground. Iraq? Try one country over.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.
The weaker Assad becomes, the more worried the U.S. becomes about his apparent stockpiles of mustard gas and nerve agents. The fear is that unknown forces, and maybe terrorist groups, will overrun the facilities where Assad keeps his chemical weapons while Assad loyalists are busy murdering demonstrators. Picture the looting and scattering of Moammar Gadhafi’s rockets or Saddam’s ordnance, only this time with stuff that attacks your lungs and digestive tract. Quietly, U.S. satellites and spy gear have started watching the sites where the U.S. thinks those weapons are.
But the U.S. might soon be doing more than watching. Danger Room pal Josh Rogin reports for Foreign Policy that American diplomats are telling Syria’s neighbors that the U.S. “stands ready… to provide border-related security cooperation” to stop the weapons of mass destruction from spilling out into the black market.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad has tried for the past year to raze his opposition to the ground, Gadhafi style, a bloody process that’s accelerated in the past few weeks. But the U.S. isn’t interested in intervening to stop the slaughter. It’s worried about something Assad might have and Saddam Hussein ultimately didn’t: chemical weapons.
The weaker Assad becomes, the more worried the U.S. becomes about his apparent stockpiles of mustard gas and nerve agents. The fear is that unknown forces, and maybe terrorist groups, will overrun the facilities where Assad keeps his chemical weapons while Assad loyalists are busy murdering demonstrators. Picture the looting and scattering of Moammar Gadhafi’s rockets or Saddam’s ordnance, only this time with stuff that attacks your lungs and digestive tract. Quietly, U.S. satellites and spy gear have started watching the sites where the U.S. thinks those weapons are.
But the U.S. might soon be doing more than watching. Danger Room pal Josh Rogin reports for Foreign Policy that American diplomats are telling Syria’s neighbors that the U.S. “stands ready… to provide border-related security cooperation” to stop the weapons of mass destruction from spilling out into the black market.
“It’s an exponentially more dangerous program than Libya,” an anonymous official told Rogin. “We are talking about legitimate WMDs here — this isn’t Iraq. The administration is really concerned about loose WMDs. It’s one of the few things you could put on the agenda and do something about without planning the fall of the regime.”
At the Pentagon on Thursday, spokesman George Little said that the U.S. military “remain[s] concerned” about Syria’s deadliest weapons, but considers them secure for now. “We believe the materials are safeguarded at this stage,” Little said.
Little batted down a report that said it would require 75,000 troops to secure the Syrian chemical weapons, and the White House’s spokesman, Jay Carney, suggested that U.S. intervention wasn’t in the cards. “In terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we are pursuing,” Carney said.
Without confirming any intention to get involved, Little acknowledged that the U.S. military has explored the question of what to do if Syria’s weapons stocks get looted. “This department is a professional planning organization that plans for contingencies around the world every day of the week,” he said.
Some members of Congress who pushed for the Libya war, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), want President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels. That doesn’t look likely; an invasion even less so. But using crack troops to quietly and swiftly snatch chemical weapons before they’re looted, or pursue those who loot them — the U.S. has an entire elite military organization that does that.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/syria-chemical-weapons/?
At the Pentagon on Thursday, spokesman George Little said that the U.S. military “remain[s] concerned” about Syria’s deadliest weapons, but considers them secure for now. “We believe the materials are safeguarded at this stage,” Little said.
Little batted down a report that said it would require 75,000 troops to secure the Syrian chemical weapons, and the White House’s spokesman, Jay Carney, suggested that U.S. intervention wasn’t in the cards. “In terms of a military action to secure a part of the country, that is not currently a policy we are pursuing,” Carney said.
Without confirming any intention to get involved, Little acknowledged that the U.S. military has explored the question of what to do if Syria’s weapons stocks get looted. “This department is a professional planning organization that plans for contingencies around the world every day of the week,” he said.
Some members of Congress who pushed for the Libya war, like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), want President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels. That doesn’t look likely; an invasion even less so. But using crack troops to quietly and swiftly snatch chemical weapons before they’re looted, or pursue those who loot them — the U.S. has an entire elite military organization that does that.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/syria-chemical-weapons/?
No comments:
Post a Comment