U.S. Administration Rethinks Syria Strategy
Officials consider scrapping efforts to create a large-scale rebel force to fight Islamic State
A Syrian man carries his two girls as he walks across rubble following a barrel bomb attack on a rebel-held neighborhood in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo on Thursday. Photo: karam al-masri/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
By Carol E. Lee and Dion Nissenbaum
Sept. 17, 2015 7:47 p.m. ET
160 COMMENTS
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is considering scrapping its effort to create a large-scale Syrian force to fight Islamic State as it searches for alternatives to prevent the American-led effort from collapsing, officials said.
Under one proposal being crafted at the Pentagon, the $500 million train-and-equip program—a core component of the U.S. Syria strategy—would be supplanted by a more modest effort focused on creating specially trained militants empowered to call in U.S. airstrikes, defense officials said.
The reconsideration comes after new disclosures of failures in the U.S. strategy in Syria, which is under intensified scrutiny at home and abroad. The overhaul in the training mission is one of a number of important changes in the Syria policy under discussion, the officials said.
The White House is also debating whether to accept a Russian proposal for talks on military activity in Syria as Moscow builds up military support for President Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime. At the same time, the White House wants to reignite long-stalled international talks aimed at reaching a resolution to Syria’s multi-sided war.
“They look at this thing and they’re frustrated too,” one senior defense official said of Pentagon leaders.
Related
* Migrant Wave Overwhelms Croatia
* Middle East Crossroads: Inaction on Assad Takes Toll
* Crackdown Boosts Hungary Leader’s Support
Defense officials said there is widespread agreement on the need to overhaul the program, but no consensus yet on how far-reaching the changes should be.
The changes are being propelled by in part by the burgeoning refugee crisis which is fueled by an exodus from Syria and by upcoming meetings among international leaders when the U.N. General Assembly convenes this month.
The administration is under pressure over disclosures by top commanders this week that the training program has produced only a handful of fighters on the battlefield. U.S. policy is also coming under growing criticism at home, where foreign policy experts and Republican political candidates have zeroed in on errors.
“I’m someone who has supported the president on many issues, and on this one I think we’ve made a major mistake by being so standoffish and uninvolved,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who advised President George W. Bush on Iran policy as undersecretary of state for political affairs and U.S. representative to NATO.
“I hope that there will be a sea change in the administration, that they will recognize that they need a comprehensive policy. It may take years to succeed, but you’ve got to start,” Mr. Burns said. “If this administration doesn’t, no matter who we elect in 2016—Republican or Democrat—will have to.”
The modifications to the U.S. training program are likely to be discussed Friday when President Barack Obama’s top cabinet members meet to deliberate on the fight against extremist group Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Such changes would amount to an admission that the Pentagon hopes of creating a formidable fighting force to enter the complex Syrian battlefield are no longer realistic.
The discussions have come amid a flurry of other high-level meetings recently. On Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with Mr. Obama and with Pentagon officials and the president made an unscheduled stop at the State Department, which the White House said was to discuss the Iran nuclear deal.
Despite the setbacks and disappointments over Syria, there is little indication that Mr. Obama will warm to more dramatic changes in his strategy, such as sending U.S. forces to Syria or establishing protected security zones.
He has so far avoided those steps while under growing pressure from critics to adopt a more risky strategy.
In dealing with Russia, U.S. officials have said any immediate talks would likely be among midlevel emissaries of the countries, not top officials.
Republican presidential candidates almost uniformly have denounced Mr. Obama’s Syria policy, saying his reluctance to more deeply involve the U.S. for fear of dragging the country into another Middle East war has allowed the crisis to spread.
In recent days, Russia has brought into a growing Syrian airfield its first drones, attack helicopters and transport choppers, along with expanding housing that U.S. defense officials estimate could be used by 2,000 people.
U.S. officials are still uncertain about Russia’s ultimate intentions, but believe Moscow is preparing to play a direct role in helping the Syrian president.
The developments have set policy assessments in motion.
While there is agreement on the need to revamp the program, there is no consensus yet on how far-reaching the changes should be, defense officials said Wednesday.
“We aren’t going to change the strategy, but we are going to make major modifications,” said the senior defense official, explaining the possible training overhaul.
The shift would mean that U.S.-backed fighters would join larger groups that haven't been vetted by American officials.
The U.S. would rule out working with al Qaeda affiliates such as the Nusra Front and would focus on identifying other groups in Syria.
The proposal would build on the successful model of cooperation between the U.S. and the Syrian Kurdish militia YPG. The militia has had the greatest success in Syria in seizing ground from Islamic State. YPG forces are able to request airstrikes from the U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes on Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
But the U.S., Turkey and the YPG have agreed to a deal that prevents the Kurds from expanding their fight further into a key part of northwestern Syria with a small Kurdish population.
“The individuals that go in there won’t have ultimate control of the operations,” the senior defense official said. “They’ll have the ability to communicate with the coalition aircraft and the ability to call in a strike.”
Instead, the U.S. is looking at picking Arab groups in northern Syria to serve as a test case for the revised approach.
If the Pentagon shifts course to focus on training small numbers of fighters, it would represent a reversal. The military has criticized the Central Intelligence Agency’s lackluster covert effort to train Syrian rebels as ineffective because it produced too few fighters.
When the Obama administration shifted the main training program to the Pentagon, the military sought to train 5,000 Syrian rebels by year’s end. But the program has been slow to get off the ground and the first group of 54 fighters to enter Syria this summer was quickly routed by rival fighters.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest stressed that the training program and is only one aspect of Mr. Obama’s strategy, saying a political resolution in Syria is important to advancing the fight against Islamic State.
“We believe the thing that would do the most to advance our strategy, to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, is for Assad to leave power so that we could see the kind of political leadership inside of Syria that would restore at least some semblance of stability to that country,” Mr. Earnest said.
As the administration looks to ramp up its diplomatic efforts, U.S. officials have said Russia and Iran—the Assad regime’s most important international allies—would be major players. The U.S. discussions would also include European allies and Arab states.
“There’s somewhat of an emerging consensus on some key points. Nobody wants wholesale regime change, institution collapse, state collapse like we saw in Iraq. We have to avoid that,” a senior administration official said.
“This has to be something that the Syrians will endorse,” the official said.
Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said Mr. Obama’s intense focus on securing the Iran nuclear deal relegated Syria to a lower priority.
The current situation in Syria “can significantly detract from that because the stability of the overall region is creaking under this fragmentation,” Mr. Katulis said. “Hopefully this moment provides a period of clarity that moves the administration to reset or refocus.”
The question facing Mr. Obama is whether he wants to make Syria a higher foreign policy priority, said Jon Alterman, a former State Department official, now Middle East analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“I don’t think the administration has set an objective to resolve this,” Mr. Alterman said.
“U.S. allies in the Middle East are increasingly acting independently because they think the United States is too passive,” he added. “The limited nature of the U.S. response leaves people too free to feel they can act with complete impunity and they act without regard to the United States because we’ve become like part of the furniture.”
Write to Carol E. Lee at carol.lee@wsj.com and Dion Nissenbaum at dion.nissenbaum@wsj.com
***
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
18092015
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là ĐỒNG LÕA với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment