It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The House and Senate Intelligence Committees have given a green light to arm Syrian rebels, as their concerns were alleviated. But a top US general warned that high costs of military options could reach billions.
In the meantime, US President Barack Obama will continue with the plan to arm Syrian rebels after several congressional concerns were alleviated, Reuters quoted officials as saying. "We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward,"House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers said.
The House and Senate intelligence committees gave a green light to send CIA weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, Washington Post reported, adding that the US will use the money already in the CIA’s budget and transfer it to the Syria operation. The plan was announced last month by the Obama administration and involves giving small arms and ammunition to some of the 1,200 groups of Syrian rebels, some of which have known affiliations with al-Qaeda.
The chairman warned that any decision would need to be weighed carefully and treated as “no less than an act of war.”
McCain and the other Senate Armed Services Committee members previously pressed Dempsey to consider the “costs, benefits and risks associated with training and arming vetted elements of the Syrian opposition? In your view, could such action alone be sufficient to adequately build the military capability of the moderate opposition in Syria and create the necessary conditions for the administration’s stated policy objective - Bashar Assad’s departure and a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria - to succeed?”
Dempsey pushed lawmakers to consider the long-term consequences any military action would mean. “Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” he replied. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surfaces fires - mortars, artillery and missiles.” He reminded the committee that virtually every scenario “could also average well over one billion dollars a month” and could provide aid to al-Qaeda or other radical groups. Along with this came a warning of no guarantee that Syrian chemical weapons would be put under an American safeguard. “Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control,” he wrote. “It would be inappropriate for me to try to influence the decision with me rendering an opinion in public about what kind of force we should use.”
policy objective - Bashar Assad’s departure and a negotiated solution to the conflict in Syria
“Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” he replied. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surfaces fires - mortars, artillery and missiles.”
Originally posted by shaneslaughta
I guess what i am getting at is we are financially broken as it is. There are roughly one hundred ninety six countries in the world, why cant someone else do it. Why are we the few who have to police the world. Endure endless costs, loss of life.....mostly at the cost of the american people.
I'm not saying there aren't others trying to help......but come on.....its one after another with no end in sight.
Obama came onboard saying he was going to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!
Broken promise #10.@ 1:18
I was not trying to go Anti Obama....its been done to death.
I just think enough is enough for a while. We need to fix our crumbling economy. The military industrial complex has a huge overhead to be a viable way to spur economic growth. We need to get some small businesses open again......we need the government to stop spending like no tomorrow. Its all a domino effect.
The government spends us into the biggest debt in human history. The american people are under such a crunch from the last sixteen years of bad presidents. They have followed the governments way of bad spending.
I say enough is enough.
So back to financing the terrorists... its a very economical way to wage war... effectively its State sponsored terrorism for the benefit of multinational corporations without having to send in massive amounts of US soldiers.
Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by LexiconV
So back to financing the terrorists... its a very economical way to wage war... effectively its State sponsored terrorism for the benefit of multinational corporations without having to send in massive amounts of US soldiers.
Right on the money. Sadly.
Although I'm thinking we should set some ground rules, like, oh, I don't know....NOT employing human shields, or NOT blowing up buildings in downtown New York afterwards, hmm? They'll abide by that, right?