Official: U.S. Approach to Syria ‘Consistent’ With Counter-WMD Strategy

Workers in protective clothing at a Munster, Germany, company involved in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, as seen in March. A senior U.S. defense official said U.S. policy toward Damascus is "consistent" with a new Pentagon strategy for countering weapons of mass destruction worldwide.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman
June 30, 2014, 10:45 a.m.

A seni­or De­fense De­part­ment of­fi­cial on Monday said the U.S. ap­proach to the con­flict in Syr­ia has been “con­sist­ent” with a just-up­dated Pentagon strategy for coun­ter­ing weapons of mass de­struc­tion.

The White House last Thursday moved to bol­ster aid to Syr­i­an rebels just days after Dam­as­cus fin­ished re­lin­quish­ing its chem­ic­al arms.

At a Pentagon press con­fer­ence, the seni­or of­fi­cial — speak­ing on con­di­tion of not be­ing named — was asked wheth­er the jux­ta­pos­i­tion in the Syr­ia case might someday make oth­er rogue lead­ers think twice about giv­ing up their nuc­le­ar, chem­ic­al or bio­lo­gic­al arms.

“I feel that our ef­fort — and the en­tire ef­fort — to elim­in­ate Syr­ia’s de­clared chem­ic­al weapons stock­pile is con­sist­ent from this [strategy],” the of­fi­cial said. “We’ve taken the ideas as we’ve been de­vel­op­ing the strategy, and we’ve been ap­ply­ing it to the Syr­ia prob­lem. So it’s ac­tu­ally been an it­er­at­ive ex­per­i­ence.”

The fig­ure did not elab­or­ate spe­cific­ally on any rami­fic­a­tions of the tim­ing of bolstered aid to rebels, but al­luded broadly to some of the com­plex­it­ies in­volved.

“This is a coun­ter­ing-WMD strategy,” the of­fi­cial said. “It’s not a re­gion­al strategy. It won’t solve prob­lems out­side of the WMD lane.

“Our goal there is to try to take the WMD prob­lems, re­duce them, elim­in­ate them where we can, take them off the table wherever pos­sible, so that we can get about the busi­ness of solv­ing oth­er prob­lems,” the seni­or of­fi­cial ad­ded.

Last Monday, an in­ter­na­tion­al co­ali­tion an­nounced it had com­pleted the re­mov­al of ap­prox­im­ately 1,300 met­ric tons of chem­ic­al-war­fare ma­ter­i­als from the Mideast coun­try. Pres­id­ent Bashar As­sad’s re­gime agreed last year to hand over the stock­pile, fol­low­ing a nerve-gas at­tack near Dam­as­cus that killed hun­dreds and spurred talk of Wash­ing­ton’s dir­ect in­ter­ven­tion in the Syr­i­an civil war.

The new De­fense De­part­ment “Strategy for Coun­ter­ing Weapons of Mass De­struc­tion,” re­leased Monday af­ter­noon, re­places 2006 Pentagon guid­ance for com­bat­ing these most sens­it­ive arms around the globe.

It em­phas­izes tak­ing a wider range of pre­vent­ive ac­tions aimed at re­du­cing and mit­ig­at­ing WMD threats earli­er, rather than grap­pling mil­it­ar­ily with crises after they oc­cur. The seni­or of­fi­cial said the ap­proach is already be­ing im­ple­men­ted, but the doc­u­ment should help to guide plan­ning and in­vest­ments go­ing for­ward.

“What steps can we take earli­er, as we of­ten say, ‘left of the prob­lem, left of crisis, left of boom, left even of ac­quis­i­tion, left of a coun­try ac­tu­ally ac­quir­ing a cap­ab­il­ity’?” the of­fi­cial said in de­scrib­ing the plan­ning ap­proach that the new strategy seeks to in­spire. “What can we bring to bear to shape that en­vir­on­ment?”

In the event that non-state act­ors seize con­trol over weapons of mass de­struc­tion some­where around the globe — as some fear could oc­cur someday in Pakistan, North Korea or else­where — the Pentagon would pur­sue “rap­id and de­cis­ive ac­tion,” ac­cord­ing to the new strategy.

Un­der such a scen­ario, the De­fense De­part­ment “will act in co­ordin­a­tion with part­ners whenev­er pos­sible, but will act uni­lat­er­ally if ne­ces­sary,” the doc­u­ment states.

The seni­or De­fense of­fi­cial on Monday re­jec­ted the idea that the strategy lays the ground­work for “pre-empt­ive” ac­tion to counter weapons of mass de­struc­tion, while not­ing that the U.S. pres­id­ent al­ways re­tains such op­tions.

The up­dated strategy puts “a fo­cus on pre­ven­tion and a fo­cus on tak­ing steps to make sure that risks don’t fully emerge,” the of­fi­cial said. “I would not in any way cor­rel­ate that to any pre­sump­tion on use of force.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×