General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, when will McCain be made to answer for arming the Benghazi rebels who attacked the US embassy? [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)and was concerned about blow-back from more heavy weapons and SAMs going to the opposition. So, if we read between the lines of this article, there were really four camps in the White House: the covert war operators (Petraeus, Clinton); those who agreed in principle with arming the opposition, but saw problems in implementation (Dempsey, Panetta), the direct interventionist (Rice); and the skeptics of US involvement in arming the opposition (Donilon and Biden). In the end, the lead covert operators left the Administration, the humanitarian warrior wasn't promoted, and the President decided to try something different, a diplomatic track and an attempt to get the Russians to sign off on some sort of settlement that doesn't completely destroy the Syrian state and military:
Also skeptical, officials said, was Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations. Her opposition was noteworthy, given that she had pushed for military intervention in Libya.
In a situation as chaotic as Syrias, said an official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, you dont know where weapons might end up, and what the consequences are if those weapons are used against civilians, against Israel, against American interests.
To avoid any risk of Israeli aircraft being targeted if weapons fell into the wrong hands, the plan would not have provided rebels with shoulder-fired missiles. But that meant that the operation would be less effective against Mr. Assads forces.
After Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton was sidelined with a concussion, the issue was shelved. Mr. Donilon convened few meetings of top officials after the election, which also limited the chance of revisiting the question.