Dempsey: Securing Syria’s Chemical Weapons Is “˜Feasible’

Stephanie Gaskell, Defense One
See more stories about...
Stephanie Gaskell, Defense One
Sept. 19, 2013, 6:02 a.m.

Part of the deal that avoided a U.S.-led mil­it­ary strike against the As­sad re­gime for the use of chem­ic­al weapons was an agree­ment to se­cure or des­troy Syr­ia’s stock­pile — something that many say will be nearly im­possible to do in the midst of a civil war. But on Wed­nes­day, Joint Chiefs Chair­man Gen. Mar­tin De­mp­sey said that it’s ‘feas­ible.’

“It’s a very chal­len­ging en­vir­on­ment,” De­mp­sey said dur­ing a press brief­ing at the Pentagon with De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel. “In­dic­at­ors are at this point, though, that the re­gime does have con­trol of its stock­pile. And so long as they agree to the frame­work which causes them to be re­spons­ible for the se­cur­ity, the move­ment, the pro­tec­tion of the in­vest­ig­at­ors or the in­spect­ors, then I think that the an­swer to your ques­tion is, it is feas­ible, but we’ve got to make sure we keep our eye on all of those things.”

The U.S. mil­it­ary is provid­ing some plan­ning as­sist­ance to the Or­gan­iz­a­tion for the Pre­ven­tion of Chem­ic­al Weapons, which is the lead agency in charge of se­cur­ing, des­troy­ing or mov­ing Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al weapons.

“The frame­work calls for it to be con­trolled, des­troyed, or moved, and I think, in some com­bin­a­tion … it is feas­ible. But those de­tails will have to be worked by the OP­CW,” De­mp­sey said.

De­mp­sey and Hagel both brushed off cri­ti­cism from former De­fense Sec­ret­ar­ies Robert Gates and Le­on Pan­etta, who dif­fer on wheth­er to launch a mil­it­ary strike against Syr­ia for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons but agree that Pres­id­ent Obama should not have con­sul­ted Con­gress first. The two spoke at a for­um Tues­day night at South­ern Meth­od­ist Uni­versity in Dal­las.

“It would weak­en him” if Con­gress voted no, Gates said. “It would weak­en our coun­try. It would weak­en us in the eyes of our al­lies, as well as our ad­versar­ies around the world.” Pan­etta agreed and poin­ted out that “Ir­an is pay­ing very close at­ten­tion to what we’re do­ing. There’s no ques­tion in my mind they’re look­ing at the situ­ation, and what they are see­ing right now is an ele­ment of weak­ness.” But he went a step fur­ther say­ing Obama should haven’t “sub­con­trac­ted” the de­cision to strike to Con­gress. “Mr. Pres­id­ent, this Con­gress has a hard time agree­ing as to what the time of day is,” Pan­etta said.

Still, the two former de­fense sec­ret­ar­ies do not agree on what course of ac­tion to take in Syr­ia. Gates, who fam­ously said that any mil­it­ary lead­er who ever launches an­oth­er large-scale ground war “should have his head ex­amined,” said Obama’s plan to “blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple days, to un­der­score or val­id­ate a point or a prin­ciple, is not a strategy.” Gates said if the U.S. launches a mil­it­ary at­tack against Syr­ia, “in the eyes of a lot of people we be­come the vil­lain in­stead of As­sad.”

“Haven’t Ir­aq, Afgh­anistan and Libya taught us something about the un­in­ten­ded con­sequences of mil­it­ary ac­tion once it’s launched?” he said.

But Pan­etta said “when the pres­id­ent of the United States draws a red line, the cred­ib­il­ity of this coun­try is de­pend­ent on him back­ing up his word.” Once Obama de­cided to at­tack Syr­ia for us­ing chem­ic­al weapons, “then he should have dir­ec­ted lim­ited ac­tion, go­ing after As­sad, to make very clear to the world that when we draw a line and we give our word … we back it up.”

Hagel said his pre­de­cessors have a right to their opin­ion, but “ob­vi­ously I don’t agree with their per­spect­ives. And I again un­der­stand what they’re say­ing, but as I have said a num­ber of times in the last two weeks on Cap­it­ol Hill, I was part of the de­cision and the pro­cess that led up to the pres­id­ent’s de­cision. I sup­port those de­cisions.”

In the mean­time, De­mp­sey said the U.S. mil­it­ary would “main­tain the cred­ible threat of force [against Syr­ia] should the dip­lo­mat­ic track fail.”

Re­prin­ted with per­mis­sion from De­fense One. The ori­gin­al story can be found here.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours 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
2 hours 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
2 hours 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
2 hours 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.
3 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:
×