Obama vetoed military intervention in Syria?
President Obama has already offered harsh words for Assad and his regime, insisting that his reign will soon be halted, even with force, should the Syrian leader chose to continue fighting his opposition with firepower. Last week world dignitaries met in Tunisia to discuss a resolution to the Syrian conflict, and reportedly Pentagon-penned plans for an intervention were offered to Obama after the event. Now, however, the commander-in-chief has reportedly refused to act on the Defense Department’s suggestions.
According to DC-insiders speaking with Israeli news outlet Debka, the US military submitted plans to Obama for an American military intervention in Syria which would be coordinated in cooperation with other allied nations across the Western and Arab world. The president has reportedly vetoed plans in that incarnation though, instead hoping that by setting up “humanitarian corridors” in the most war-torn section of Syria, the US can aid the Assad opposition without militarizing the rebels.
Earlier this month, Obama went on the record to oppose US military intervention, defending his administration’s official handling of the uprising so far and insisting that America has been “relentless” in demanding President Assad relinquishes his duties in Syria. Violence overseas has intensified in recent weeks, however, causing some to suggest that the US find a way to intervene before the death toll increases any further.
Debka’s latest reporting suggests that it could be a while before the US officially endorses any military intervention, although others have suggested that States have already, off the record, offered support to the rebels. As RT reported earlier, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds believes that American forces in conjunction with NATO have already been training Syrian rebels since last year in the Turkish city of Hakkari. Upwards of 10,000 Libyans are also believed to being trained nearby to assist in nearby Jordan. In Washington, Senator John McCain also suggested that the US involve themselves even without officially endorsing the operation, saying, “I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement.”
Officially, the Obama administration has condemned all bloodshed in Syria but has limited its opposition against to Assad’s regime with words only. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland Wednesday said in January that the White House “made clear from the very beginning that we don’t support violence by any side and we also don’t want to see this conflict further militarized.”
Matters have only worsened since then, with some figure from Syria suggesting that the death toll has approached 9,000 casualties. Dozens of anti-Assad nations gathered last week to draft a resolution, which Debka reports would have put American aircraft over the skies of Syria, with the Defense Department refusing to put any boots on the ground.
A similar operation was how America went about last year’s ousting of Muammar Gaddafi from Libya, although the United States’ involvement at that time was instituted by Obama and never brought before a Congressional vote.
The resolution reportedly vetoed by Obama, adds Debka, would call for cooperation with Turkey, France, Italy and Britain and would involve US aircraft being dispatched from Turkey and Cyprus to thwart the Assad regime, while maintain a “safe haven” for Syrian civilians under an air shield maintained by the allies.