U.S. in no hurry to go after Assad’s chemical weapons

Haaretz

Behind the dispute between the United States and other Western countries over how the Bashar Assad regime made use of chemical weapons lies a genuine American concern over involvement in Syria’s civil war. The Obama administration is concerned not only about the possible political implications of a military operation to neutralize Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, but also the practical difficulties in carrying out such an operation.

When the danger of the chemical weapons first became a subject of public discourse in Israel close to a year ago, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz spoke at a session of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee about two possible types of action: a large-scale ground operation on Syrian soil, or a targeted air assault on convoys trying to smuggle chemical weapons to Hezbollah, for example. Gantz hinted that if action became necessary, he would aim for the second option.

If Israel is not interested in a wide-scale operation to foil the threat, that’s true all the more so for the United States. A major operation would involve “boots on the ground” − the dispatch of ground troops that would result in casualties − precisely the scenario that U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to avoid at a time when America is still licking its wounds from the two wars initiated by Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In briefings recently for American media representatives, administration officials have said that removing the chemical weapons threat in Syria would require ground operations involving no fewer than 75,000 U.S. troops, probably with assistance from other countries. They would include mainly commando units, intelligence forces and experts in the neutralization of chemical weaponry. Administration sources say the West is aware of at least 18 sites where President Bashar Assad’s regime maintains chemical weapons. There have been several instances in which Assad ordered the transfer of chemical and biological weapons stocks from areas of heavy fighting against rebels to areas thought a bit more secure for their storage.

A military operation in Syria would require precise intelligence at an extraordinary level. It’s reasonable to assume that it would also involve military resistance on the part of the Assad regime, both in defense of the sites themselves and with the goal of portraying the war in a manner that Assad has had difficulty doing: as a joint plot of the West and Al-Qaida against the enlightened regime in Damascus to overthrow it. Intelligence experts are divided over whether Iran and Hezbollah would help defend the Syrian chemical weapon sites in the event of a U.S.-led military operation targeting them. But that would just be the beginning of America’s headache.

The weaponry would have to be collected on the ground and perhaps transported outside of Syria so it could be neutralized and buried; either that or the facilities in which the weapons are stored would have to be destroyed. That’s a task of rare proportions which would take many months to carry out, even if the capture of the weapons proceeded more easily than expected. All of these are good reasons on the administration’s part to avoid action as much as possible.

The lack of enthusiasm in Washington for a new military undertaking is apparent both when it comes to Syria and in connection with the lengthy discussions with Israel over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat. But Iran at least looks like a challenge that some of the experts believe could be overcome with a targeted air operation lasting only a few days. No one has illusions that an assault targeting Syria’s chemical weapons could be wrapped up so quickly. Nonetheless, the Americans, as is their style, have preparations in order for such a possibility. According to Arab media, commando forces from the United States and Jordan have already been training for several months for such a task. A recent Jordanian report caused a major stir in that country, stating that the Americans had sent a rescue team of 200 men to Jordan, along with headquarters staff from an armored division, in preparation for a future intervention in Syria. The report has already sparked protest demonstrations in Amman.

The current controversy was sparked by comments by the head of the research division of IDF Military Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, who last week spoke of Israel’s assessment that the nerve gas sarin had been used in the war in Syria. But even after being forced to agree with the Israeli assessment, senior Obama administration officials have raised the extenuating possibility that the chemical weapons might have been deployed by mistake.