Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
22. I read this to imply that Susan Rice wanted a direct US military intervention,
Tue Feb 19, 2013, 11:28 AM
Feb 2013

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:

But the president, who had campaigned on the theme that “the tide of war” was receding, was more skeptical, fearing that such a move would, in effect, draw the United States into a proxy war against the Syrian government and its Iranian and Russian backers, with uncertain results. His wariness was reinforced, officials said, by his closest advisers, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, both of whom advised against it.

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 Syria’s,” said an official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, “you don’t 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. Assad’s 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.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

McCain's Benghazi obsession is that the US didn't fully follow-through and arm the Syrian rebels leveymg Feb 2013 #1
McCain is upset because we didn't arm Syrian rebels. Rand Paul is upset because he thinks we did. pampango Feb 2013 #14
She wouldn't make much of a poker player. Her response is pure "neither confirm nor deny." leveymg Feb 2013 #15
Or maybe that is what makes a good poker player. pampango Feb 2013 #17
What's your source for "opposed by Biden, Thomas Donilon and Susan Rice."? leveymg Feb 2013 #18
NY Times article last night on Obama reconsidering arming the rebels: TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #20
Thanks - please see my response, #22, immediately below. leveymg Feb 2013 #24
I read this to imply that Susan Rice wanted a direct US military intervention, leveymg Feb 2013 #22
Biden and Donilon 'advised against it' and Rice was 'skeptical'. The article does not indicate that pampango Feb 2013 #28
Read these two sentences together, and that's what it says about Rice's position. leveymg Feb 2013 #30
No it does not. pampango Feb 2013 #31
Recall last May, Rice was pushing for Iraq-style US-NATO action outside a UNSC authorization. leveymg Feb 2013 #34
"Rice did not specify what 'actions' she meant." "There are fears that her words could mean pampango Feb 2013 #35
What else could Rice mean other than "the threat of military action"? That's certainly how they leveymg Feb 2013 #36
A New York Times artcie in yesterday's paper. pampango Feb 2013 #23
Most of the GOP critique is a sort of red herring, and only one publicly addressed the real issue. leveymg Feb 2013 #25
Dream on. mccain will just swear at the panel and walk away. Javaman Feb 2013 #2
I sure as hell wish he'd be confronted by this. . .n/t annabanana Feb 2013 #3
Now you're talkin' libodem Feb 2013 #4
As usual, Republicans set the fires thesquanderer Feb 2013 #5
St. John McCain doth protest too much, Methinks formercia Feb 2013 #6
Note to St. John McCain: formercia Feb 2013 #7
it's a bit clearer to me why the President's held off arming Syrian resistance fighters bigtree Feb 2013 #8
The President sets Foreign Policy formercia Feb 2013 #12
To tell John2 Feb 2013 #9
You're implying that we have a media that will hold him accountable. ForgoTheConsequence Feb 2013 #10
It sure looks like the Ambassador is saying to himself, sheshe2 Feb 2013 #11
. bigtree Feb 2013 #13
He Playes The Corporate Media Like A Violin... KharmaTrain Feb 2013 #16
k&r... spanone Feb 2013 #19
Amazing how involved he and the GOP were in Libya. TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #21
"Shut up with the damn facts. Grrrrrr." - Sen. Grumpy Grampy (R) Berlum Feb 2013 #26
I get what you're doing, but... Buzz Clik Feb 2013 #27
FOX news wouldn't report this bigtree Feb 2013 #29
McCain is in real life what Ned Beatty's ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2013 #32
Right after Lucifer borrows some propane from me Recursion Feb 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So, when will McCain be m...»Reply #22