Panetta and Dempsey supported a plan to arm Syrian rebels that was rejected by the White House
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey were in favor of the plan last year put forth by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus to arm the Syrian opposition, a plan which was rejected by the White House.
The New York Times reported last week that Secretary Clinton, along with Gen. Petraeus, had advocated arming select Syrian rebels in their fight against the Assad regime, but that this was turned down by President Obama.
During testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee on Thursday, Dempsey said both he and Panetta sided with Clinton.
“Did you support the recommendation by then Secretary of State Clinton and then head of CIA General Petraeus that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?” Sen. John McCain asked Panetta and Dempsey.
“We did,” Dempsey responded.
McCain issued a statement later Thursday condemning the White House for overruling the leadership of the State Department, the Defense Department, and the CIA on this matter, calling Obama’s opposition to arming the rebels “a graphic failure of American leadership.”
For at least a year, the US has bolstered the Syrian rebel movement fighting to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Hundreds of millions of dollars as well as non-lethal gear have been sent to the rebel fighters, in addition to financial aid and weapons from US allies in the Arab Gulf states.
But reports have long established that al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups, and other Sunni extremist factions like it, have become the key element in the Syrian rebel opposition, despite repeated attempts by some in Washington to paint the rebels as freedom fighters.
In October, The New York Times published an article confirming that “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists,” despite the fact that those weapons were being sent with US approval and coordination.
All along, the Obama administration claimed they had a proper vetting process which allowed them to pick and choose which of Syria’s disparate, unorganized rebel groups would receive the assistance, and avoid the thousands of jihadist fighters, many of whom are fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda.
But a US official told the Washington Post early on that the CIA knew very little about who was receiving US support, nor could they control exactly where it ended up. “It’s still the case that without actual access to Syria, it’s hard to know exactly who they are,” the official said.
The New York Times also reported that the Obama administration has been “increasing aid to the rebels” even though “we don’t really know” who is receiving it.
In two recent interviews, President Obama articulated in unprecedented depth why his administration has chosen to refrain from either directly arming rebel fighters in Syria or from any direct military action against the Assad regime.
“We do nobody a service when we leap before we look, where we…take on things without having thought through all the consequences of it,” Obama said in an interview with CBS.
“We are not going to be able to control every aspect of every transition and transformation” in conflicts around the world, he added.
“What I have to constantly wrestle with,” President Obama said in a separate interview with The New Republic, “is where and when can the United States intervene or act in ways that advance our national interest, advance our security, and speak to our highest ideals and sense of common humanity.”
“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask, can we make a difference in that situation?” Obama asked. “Would a military intervention have an impact? How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan? What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground? Could it trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons?”
Experts largely agree, Obama’s staff and Congressional Republicans notwithstanding, that a US intervention in Syria would worsen the humanitarian situation, and specifically for the Clinton-Petraeus plan of arming the rebels, would sponsor al-Qaeda affiliates and lay the ground for blowback.
#1 by annebeck58 on February 8, 2013 - 10:08 pm
Which one to believe?
They lie so much it’s really impossible.
I still believe our CIA is or was working with their “rebels” and started all of this unrest/ civil-war, there. So of course we amed them.
#2 by Ingrid B on February 9, 2013 - 4:52 am
Saw a news report on Press TV about their prescious “rebels” training Syrian children to become ruthless killers, didn`t the same thing occur in one of the African countries?
#3 by michael mazur on February 10, 2013 - 1:36 am
Looking at Obama’s discourse, it is evident he has a clear multidimensional mind also when on his feet, unlike the Israeli windup toys; McCain, Clinton, Panetta, Dempsey, Petraeus, which is why Israeli pressure to war on Iran is so trenchantly resisted by him, for he knows that thereby America will be brought down.
By asking,’What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground?’ in respect of Syria, he is clearly, much more loudly, also asking the same in closed session with any Israelis he suffers to see when they try and wheedle him into promptly following up an Israeli assault on Iran.
Key to understanding, as of June06, when the assault on Iran was first seriously imminent, why it has not eventuated to this day, was that the Israelis had to have it guaranteed that an initiation of the assault on Iran, would be followed within the hour with the follow up assault by America.
Otherwise by there being a gap of a mere 24hrs, Israel would have suffered from a thousand Iranian missiles with thousands of casualties.
What the Israelis can’t afford, should they initiate the assault on Iran, is to then have Obama ponder the above two questions, ‘What would be the aftermath of our involvement on the ground?’, and ‘How would it affect our ability to support troops who are still in Afghanistan?’.
Which last question, in passing, just reveals how low Amercan supplies of war materiel really are.
#4 by annebeck58 on February 10, 2013 - 4:34 am
I agree to a degree, Michael.
Netanyahu will never start off on Iran until and unless he is one-hundred percent assured that the USA is ready to go, too. In fact, I think it will have to be the USA that kicks off, and unless the Military Industrial Complex is ready to do this, Obama cannot guarrantee it.
I was listening to someone else (and I wish I could recall which activist it was..) that said, if we see a attack on Iran,we will also see a mass-exodus BY American military from these wars. I think it’s a valid point.
So unless nutty-yahoo is ready to send his own military in, on their own, against anyone who can fight back or Obama is ready to risk our military and they are ready to risk their own selves, it cannot happen.
I think this is why the little freak from the lunatic-state keeps goading Ahmadinejad. I think Bibi believes, if he pushes hard enough with words, Iran will instigate a true war against Tel Aviv.
Another problem with this thinking is this: in at least two-hundred years, Iran has attacked absolutely nobody.., so Bibi has a lot time to wait, even with his verbal diarrhea of slings and arrows. Here’s what Norman Finkelstein said about Obama and Israel:
I thought it was pretty good. Basically, Obama will say anything put before him, including anything for Israhell. But, it does not mean Obama means it or that he’ll say the same thing, tomorrow.
#5 by dkgo on February 10, 2013 - 12:10 pm
Spin control and lies. They have been training and arming these perps since BEFORE the phony Arab Spring, in fact many of them are hand-me-down Iraqi Al Qaeda assisted by Mossad/CIA/MI6 in 2003. NATO has even flown some of these ‘rebels’ into the USA for training and polishing up. What rubbish. Is there no stink that the sheeple will not inhale??
#6 by michael mazur on February 10, 2013 - 11:41 pm
I watched the interview of N.Finkelstein, Anne, and it thereby firmed for me, that Obama has a secret core agenda, concealed by that flip-flopping of his spoken to by Finkelstein, and known only by his wife – and for us to guess.
Michelle is thinking of her two daughters, and doesn’t want them inheriting a devastated America. Pillow talk stuff. It helps me conclude that he has all along been signalling non verbally to Netanyahu that, yes, we will come to your aid in the event of a retaliation by Iran to your attack, but not immediately.
Netanyahu doesn’t dare initiate the assault, for the Americans will do all the right things, like convene Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings, followed by the convening of Congress in emergency session, with Obama addressing both Congress and the JCS.
All good and proper, but meanwhile thousands of missiles have fallen on Israel. Thousands of deaths.
End of Netanyahu, instantly the most hated man in all of Jewry’s history.
And yes, the American military on the ground, having been abused in the service of Israel in all these wars might no longer have the morale, nor the capacity, to wittingly do it all again, especially against an adversary not exhausted by war since the Iraq/Iran conflict ended in ’88, and now grown formidable.
The blowback of spontaneous mutinies all over America washing over the people of America will be the impetus moving the people to not co operate with any Federal agency, and to then demand of their state govts to take back the powers conceded to the Federal govt.
Long aware of such highly likely outcomes partially explains why Netanyahu hasn’t unilaterally attacked Iran, the other reason is that Iran is not Gaza or the West Bank or Lebanon.
Very unfortunately for Netanyahu, Ahmadinejad is not going to be provoked into attacking Israel, no matter the offensive language emanating from lunatic Netanyahu.