海角大神

The nation鈥檚 top military officer warned repeatedly in recent months that getting US military involved with Syria is a dangerous proposition that runs the risk of quick escalation.

In congressional testimony this week, however, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,聽Gen. Martin Dempsey, has been put in the tricky position of defending the White House desire to launch a strike there.

Did he change his mind, or is he just doing the White House鈥檚 bidding?

In the past, he has made it clear that US military intervention could tip the balance of power in favor of Islamist rebels who don鈥檛 necessarily have the interests of the United States at heart.

What鈥檚 more, he has warned, any Pentagon foray directed by the president could have the unintended consequences of miring US troops more deeply in the Syrian conflict.

As lawmakers weigh options, 鈥淲e must also understand risk,鈥� Gen. Dempsey warned in a July letter in response to Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona, which he was required to provide in order to be reconfirmed for his current position. 鈥淥nce we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.鈥�

This came after a testy exchange in which Dempsey speculated that perhaps Senator McCain blamed him for the decision not to act earlier in Syria.

鈥淪enator, somehow you鈥檝e got me portrayed as the 鈥� you know, the one who鈥檚 holding back from our use of military force inside Syria,鈥� he said. That decision, he noted, belongs to President Obama.

McCain had been advocating for the establishment of a no-fly zone, while Dempsey cautioned that the cost of such a move would be considerable 鈥� averaging as much as $1 billion per month 鈥� and likely have only a limited impact on violence in the country, since most of the civilian casualties are being caused by mortars, artillery, and missiles.

But with the recent increased confidence in the White House that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people, the calculus has changed for many in Washington.

According to an intelligence report, the Syrians have more than 1,000 tons of chemical agents and precursor chemicals, and several hundred tons of sarin, which represents the bulk of Mr. Assad鈥檚 arsenal.

The regime also reportedly has the missile capability of delivering these chemical weapons to neighbors in Israel, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq, Sen. Richard Durbin (D) of Illinois noted in a Senate Foreign Relations Hearing Tuesday.

Dempsey confirmed this information, saying it 鈥渧ery closely matches鈥� the Pentagon鈥檚 assessment.

The guidance that Mr. Obama has now given to his military planners is to design an intervention plan with 鈥渁 collateral damage estimate of low,鈥� meaning to kill as few civilians as possible, Dempsey said.

These assessments will be 鈥渂ased on how much we know about a target through intelligence, its proximity to civilian structures, and weapons effects as we decide what weapon鈥� to use, he added.

This doesn鈥檛 mean that there will not be civilian deaths. 鈥淎 collateral damage estimate of low means just that 鈥� that we will keep collateral damage lower than a certain number,鈥� Dempsey said. 鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean, by the way, that we would have the same constraint, if you will, in what damage could be done to regime personnel.鈥�

Dempsey told lawmakers that the military intervention under discussion will be 鈥渧ery focused on the response to chemical weapons鈥� and will be 鈥渓imited and focused in scope and duration.鈥澛燗t a minimum, that focus and limitation appear to make it more palatable for the Pentagon鈥檚 top officer to give public support for the proposed operation.

As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution Wednesday to authorize air and naval strikes against Syria, McCain praised the vote, saying that the goal of the of the operation should be altering the balance of power on the battlefield in favor of the rebels.

This is a move that senior Pentagon officials have repeatedly warned against, however. Military officials continue to seek 鈥渃larity of who we鈥檙e dealing with and also clarity of outcome.鈥�

They have also warned that air strikes will come with dangers, including 鈥渓oss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,鈥� Dempsey wrote in his July letter.

Any Syria strike will not, however, include eliminating chemical weapons. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not possible given the number and the distribution of them,鈥� Dempsey told lawmakers Wednesday.

Syria has a 鈥渕assive stockpile,鈥� according to senior US military officials. Even in the highly unlikely event of the insertion of 鈥渢housands鈥� of US Special Operations Forces 鈥� Secretary of State John Kerry has promised that there would be no 鈥渂oots on the ground鈥� 鈥� the impact would be 鈥渢he control of some, but not all, chemical weapons,鈥� Dempsey noted in July.

The Syrian strike that the Pentagon is planning is 鈥渁bout convincing the Assad regime that it鈥檚 unacceptable for them to use them,鈥� Dempsey said Wednesday of chemical weapons. 鈥淎nd that鈥檚 the limit of this military operation.鈥�