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 »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×