Would US airstrikes in Syria lead to American 'boots on ground'?

Airstrikes against Syria could lead to unintended consequences in that country's civil war, skeptics say, and draw US ground troops into a larger conflict. That's also the concern of much of the American public, polls show.

Peter Grier 7 hours ago

A main worry of opponents of a US attack on Syria can be summed up in four words: “boots on the ground.”

Skeptics say initial American airstrikes might be limited, but they could well produce unintended consequences in Syria’s civil war, inevitably drawing US and allied ground troops into a larger conflict.

This view is held by a solid majority of US residents, according to a new Pew Research poll. Seventy-four percent of respondents to the Pew survey said US airstrikes would lead to a backlash against the United States and its allies in the region. Another 61 percent judged airstrikes likely to lead to a long-term military commitment in Syria.

The bottom line: Only 29 percent of respondents favored airstrikes, in Pew’s survey. Forty-eight percent were opposed, and 23 percent didn’t know what to do.

The survey “finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective,” says Pew.

Other polls produce similar findings – a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Tuesday found 59 percent opposition to attacking Syria. US lawmakers have been getting an earful on this issue from constituents during the August recess. That’s why Secretary of State John Kerry’s slip on the “boots on the ground” question Tuesday attracted a lot of attention.

Asked at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing whether a congressional resolution should contain a prohibition on the deployment of American soldiers to the region, Secretary Kerry said “no.”

If Syria imploded, or Syria’s chemical weapons were about to fall into the hands of terrorists, the US might need to send troops, in Kerry’s judgment.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,” said Kerry.

This did not sit well with some lawmakers. Sen. Bob Corker (R) of Tennessee said he did not think it an appropriate response.

“I don’t think there are any of us here that are willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on the ground,” said Senator Corker.

Realizing what he’d done, Kerry quickly backtracked, saying he was speaking only hypothetically. “There will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war,” Kerry said.

Few if any US lawmakers believe the administration is itching to escalate the Syrian situation, given the president’s apparent ambivalence over any military action there. Those such as Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona who favor more direct US involvement in the effort to topple Syria’s Bashar al-Assad are frustrated that the White House won’t do more.

The problem now for the administration is that years of involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts have emphasized the inability of any US president to control conflicts once they’re started. “Events are in the saddle and ride mankind,” according to a quote usually attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

As to how that might play out in Syria, a new RAND Corp. study on US air power options there concludes it would not be an easy matter to achieve American objectives with stand-off munitions alone.

Destroying the Syrian air force would be operationally feasible but would produce only a marginal benefit for Syrian civilians, according to the RAND study. Neutralizing Syrian air defenses would be manageable, but would not be an end in itself.

Establishing safe areas inside Syria would amount to intervention on the side of the opposition, while an air campaign against the Syrian Army would do more to ensure the fall of the Assad regime than to determine its replacement, says RAND. Air power might reduce Mr. Assad’s ability or desire to use chemical weapons, but eliminating Syrian chemical weapons stocks would require a “large ground operation,” according to RAND.

“Each of these aerial intervention options has the potential to escalate or expand the conflict to lead to escalatory responses from Assad’s allies, or to widen or deepen US military involvement. Therefore, anticipating potential next steps after an initial intervention should be central to any strategic planning for using airpower in Syria,” write RAND’s Karl Mueller, Jeffrey Martini, and Thomas Hamilton.

Related stories

• Briefing Chemical weapons 101: Six facts about sarin and Syria’s stockpile
• Senators warn Kerry: Syria can't become another Iraq (+video)
• Why Boehner had 'no choice' but to support Obama on Syria

Read this story at csmonitor.com

Become a part of the Monitor community

Americans' biggest worry in any Syrian conflict

Airstrikes are likely to be the focus of any potential U.S. involvement in Syria, but will they be enough?
What polls show

Obama: 'I didn't set a red line' on Syria

Recasting his role in setting a “red line” on Syria, President Barack Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Bashar Assad’s alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.

“My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line,” Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

“I do have to ask people, well, if, in fact, you’re outraged by the slaughter of innocent people, what are you doing about it?” Obama asked. “The moral thing to do is not to stand by and do nothing.”

The president rejected any notion that he needs to use military force against Syria in order to preserve his personal standing in the world after calling a chemical weapons attack a “red line” in an Aug. 20, 2012, press conference.

“I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line,” he insisted. “The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.”

View gallery."

In this citizen journalism image provided by the United media office of Arbeen which has been authen …

And “Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated, in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act, that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for,” he added.

The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria never signed, does not call for unilateral military force in response to violations by countries not party to the treaty. The Syria Accountability Act imposes tough economic sanctions on Syria, but it does not envision unilateral military force. And Obama mentioned neither in his fateful remarks one year ago.

Still, Obama insisted on Wednesday, “that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.”

His arguments recalled then-President George W. Bush’s warnings in the runup to the invasion of Iraq that world credibility was on the line because of a series of U.N. Security Council resolutions warning Saddam Hussein about possessing weapons of mass destruction, and Bush’s insistence that Congress’ credibility was at stake because it passed the Iraq Liberation Act that made “regime change” official U.S. policy.

View gallery."

Syria braces for tough response from West.

“I’m very mindful of the fact that around the world and here in Europe in particular, there are still memories of Iraq,” Obama said.

“Keep in mind, I’m somebody who opposed the war in Iraq and am not interested in repeating mistakes of us basing decisions on faulty intelligence,” he added. “We believe very strongly, with high confidence, that in fact chemical weapons were used and that Mr. Assad was the source.”

Obama’s comments came as the deeply divided Congress wrestled with whether to approve legislation granting him authorization to use force against Syria.

Asked what he would do if lawmakers rejected the measure, Obama bluntly told lawmakers that he does not need their permission to strike Syria. And he challenged Congress to do more than “sit on the sidelines (and) snipe.”

“As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress,” Obama said.

Obama's Impassioned Plea for ActionPlay video."

“But I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise; I think it’s important to have Congress’s support on it,” Obama said at a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

The president expressed confidence that Congress will ultimately give him its green light for military action against the Syrian president’s forces, whom Washington accuses of massacring civilians with chemical weapons on Aug. 21.

“I believe Congress will approve it,” he said.

“We can send a very clear strong message in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again,” Obama said.

“What I’m talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again,” the president said.

And Obama said Congress must be more invested in the use of American military force abroad — at least when American national security, or that of an ally's, is not directly and imminently threatened.

“It’s important for us to get out of the habit of just saying, ‘well, we’ll let the president kind of stretch the boundaries of his authority as far as he can. Congress will sit on the sidelines, snipe. If it works, the sniping will be a little less. If it doesn’t, a little more.' But either way, the American people and their representatives are not fully invested in what are tough choices,” Obama said.

Obama says 'red line' wasn't his

The president insists it's the credibility of Congress and the United States, not himself, that's at risk with the vote on action in Syria.
'The moral thing to do is ...'

Senate panel approves resolution on Syria military strikes

By Rachelle Younglai and Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution on Wednesday authorizing a limited U.S. military intervention in Syria, setting the stage for a debate in the full Senate next week on the use of military force.

The committee voted 10-7 in favor of a compromise resolution that sets a 60-day limit on any engagement in Syria and bars the use of U.S. troops on the ground for combat operations.

The compromise is more limited than President Barack Obama's original proposal but meets the administration's goal of punishing Syria for what the U.S. government says is the use of chemical weapons on Syrian civilians, killing more than 1,400 people.

The authorization still faces significant resistance in Congress, where many lawmakers fear it could lead to a prolonged U.S. military involvement in Syria's civil war and spark an escalation of regional violence.

View gallery."

In this citizen journalism image provided by the United media office of Arbeen which has been authen …

The full Senate is expected to vote on the resolution next week. The House of Representatives also must approve the measure.

Obama and administration officials have pushed Congress to act quickly, saying U.S. national security and international credibility is at stake in the decision whether to use force in Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad's government for chemical weapons use.

"If we don't take a stand here today, I guarantee you, we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future," Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a separate meeting on Wednesday.

"Assad will read our silence, our unwillingness to act, as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity," Kerry said.

The committee vote came after the two panel leaders - Democratic Chairman Robert Menendez and senior Republican Bob Corker - crafted a compromise to meet concerns from some lawmakers that Obama's resolution was too open-ended.

View gallery."

March 8, 2005 - A Syrian soldier riding on top of a tank gestures after leaving his position, in Dah …

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona had objected to the more narrow wording. But the committee adopted amendments proposed by McCain with policy goals of degrading Assad's ability to use chemical weapons, increasing support for rebel forces and reversing battlefield momentum to create conditions for Assad's removal.

Many lawmakers have said they are worried the resolution could lead to U.S. ground troops, or "boots on the ground," in Syria - which administration officials said would not happen.

"It's very clear on the House side there is no support for boots on the ground," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce told Kerry at Wednesday's hearing, which also featured testimony from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Kerry answered flatly, "There will be no boots on the ground. The president has said it again and again."

(Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell, Vicki Allen, Susan Heavey, Thomas Ferraro; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Karey Van Hall, Vicki Allen and Jim Loney)

Senate panel approves use of force in Syria

The resolution would permit Obama to order a limited military mission, as long as it involved no U.S. troops on the ground.
Sets up big debate

There is a "100 percent" probability that the Syrian government will use chemical weapons again if the United States does not launch a military strike, Secretary of State John Kerry told members of the House Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel echoed Kerry's remark, saying "very high" when asked by Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly about the likelihood of another Syrian chemical attack absent U.S. action.

The comments came as Obama administration officials presented their case on Wednesday to members of the House Foreign Relations Committee for a U.S. strike on Syria after the U.S. government accused Bashar Assad's government forces of killing more than 1,000 people with chemical weapons on Aug. 21. While the Obama officials answered questions from House lawmakers, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved legislation Wednesday afternoon authorizing Obama to strike Syria. The panel voted to send the measure to the full Senate by a margin of 10 ayes, seven nays, and one senator voting present. The legislation, which could still face attempted amendments, is expected to face a final Senate vote next week.

The hearing — where Kerry, Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified — comes after a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday. The witnesses faced intense skepticism from some House members, many of whom have already voiced opposition to President Barack Obama's call for military action.
In the House, lawmakers took turns questioning Kerry, asking him about the cost of an attack, the role of international partners in implementing a strike and whether there was proof that Assad was truly behind the chemical attack on Syrian citizens.

“If we act in a unilateral way, I have huge concerns,” said New York Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks. “I have yet to hear some concrete things about what the world is doing.”

Ohio Republican Rep. Steve Chabot conceded to the panel that a majority of his constituents were urging him to vote down the resolution. "I do want to recognize some serious concerns," Chabot said.

When delivering his opening remarks, Kerry reiterated what he told the Senate committee the day before, arguing that Assad "will read our silence as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity."

But later in the hearing, Kerry made a point to emphasize that the purpose of the strike on the Middle Eastern country was not regime change or even to end Assad’s assault on the Syrian people.

“It will not stop the butchery,” Kerry said when pressed by Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Tom Marino. “I wish it would.”

The intention, Kerry went on to say, was to “assert the principle” that governments should not use chemical weapons. Hagel added that those limited strikes would cost “tens of millions” of dollars to carry out.

Marino was not swayed, and expressed his intention to vote against authorization to the panel.

During one exchange with South Carolina Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, Hagel told lawmakers that Russia was responsible for providing some chemical weapons to Assad's regime.

“There’s no secret that the Assad regime has had chemical weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons,” Hagel said, adding, that the "Russians supply them. Others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves.”

However, Kerry added later in the hearing, the U.S. would not risk a conflict with Russia if American forces attack Syria.

"Russia does not intend to fight a war over Syria." Kerry said. "Syria does not rise to that level of a potential conflict."

The “no” votes in the Senate panel on Wednesday included Democrats Tom Udall of New Mexico and Chris Murphy of Connecticut as well as Republicans James Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Barrasso of Wyomin, and Rand Paul of Kentucky. Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Edward Markey voted present.

Prior to the final vote, the committee beat back several attempts to restrict the president’s war-making powers, notably an amendment from Udall aiming to forbid U.S. warplanes from entering Syrian airspace and a broader one from Paul reasserting that the Constitution reserves war-declaring powers to Congress, not the president. But the committee approved a non-binding statement of policy asserting that America aims to change the momentum in Syria to promote a negotiated political settlement that facilitates the establishment of a democratic government.

The Senate panel also reaffirmed that U.S. strategy should be to degrade the Assad regime’s military capabilities, including his ability to use chemical weapons, even as Washington builds up “the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities” of moderate rebels.

For the Obama administration officials making the case before Congress, the House hearing was much smoother than the one in the Senate a day earlier when Kerry stumbled over a question about whether approving a strike against the Syrian government could result in a call for U.S. ground forces in the country. At first he said it could happen, and then he took back the remark.

“I don’t want anything coming out of this hearing that leaves any door open to any possibilities, so let’s shut that door now, as tight was we can,” Kerry said.

On Wednesday, Kerry took pains to emphasize that the strike would be limited and would not require U.S. "boots on the ground" in the region."

"We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground," he said. "The president has made crystal clear we have no intention of assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war.”

Obama insisted on Wednesday that Congress and the world will lose credibility if Assad’s alleged chemical weapons massacre goes unpunished.

“My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line, and America and Congress’ credibility is on the line,” Obama said during a visit to Stockholm, Sweden.

Obama also bluntly stated during the Stockholm news conference that he does not need Congress' permission to strike Syria, and he challenged Congress to do more than “sit on the sidelines (and) snipe.”

“As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress,” Obama said.

Leaders in the House and Senate have planned a debate about the authorization measure next week.