Obama’s Syria policy in shambles as Assad opposition squabbles

[leveymg]

23. The Petraeus-Clinton program was a more direct covert arming of the opposition.

It's a minor difference, but a difference. Since Spring 2011 the policy has been to provide "non-lethal" aid -- coordination, logistics, supplies, money,and attendant vetting of opposition groups, but not to directly arm the rebel groups. Anyone we approved had to go to the Qataris or other sources for their weapons.

The reported movement of SA-7 and other heavy arms from Libya to Turkey that was exposed by the Benghazi attack, however, showed the US was at least tolerating escalation of the arms trade in areas such as Eastern Libya supposedly under our control, and the use of these by Jihadist groups showed we weren't all that particular about who got them and how they were used.

After Benghazi, there was a reevaluation of the existing covert arms program, and a decision to back-off to some degree until some greater controls could be imposed. I believe that program evaluation -- the cutoff of some Saudi-supported Salafist groups -- resulted in a sharper rift within the Administration than is publicly admitted, and led to the departures of those who were pushing the previous program.

Some more of the particulars of those events surrounding Benghazi and the policy rift were made public in February: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html?_r=1&

WASHINGTON — In his first term, President Obama presided over an administration known for its lack of open dissension on critical foreign policy issues.

Related:
Facing Congress, Clinton Defends Her Actions Before and After Libya Attack (January 24, 2013)
Clearing the Record About Benghazi (October 18, 2012)
4 Are Out at State Dept. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack (December 20, 2012)

But on Thursday, deep divisions over what to do about one of those issues — the rising violence in Syria — spilled into public view for the first time in a blunt exchange between Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the leaders of the Pentagon. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. But it was ultimately vetoed by the White House, Mr. Panetta said, although it was developed by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state.

“How many more have to die before you recommend military action?” Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting. And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”

“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.

“You did support that,” Mr. McCain said.

“We did,” General Dempsey added.

Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with Mr. Obama in the middle of a re-election campaign, the White House rebuffed the plan, a decision that Mr. Panetta says he now accepts. With the exception of General Dempsey, the officials who favored arming the rebels have either left the administration or, as in Mr. Panetta’s case, are about to depart. Given that turnover, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of the debate — an illustration of the degree that foreign policy decisions have been centralized in the White House — are surfacing only now. A White House spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.

The plan that Mr. Petraeus developed, and that Mrs. Clinton supported, called for vetting rebels and training a cadre of fighters who would be supplied with weapons. The plan would have enlisted the help of a neighboring state. The proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies for the United States during the conflict and if President Bashar al-Assad is removed. Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.