Obama Plans Full-Scale War on Syria

by Stephen Lendman

He exceeds the worst of George Bush. He's currently waging multiple direct and proxy wars. He's insatiable.

He's a war criminal multiple times over. He's got lots more killing and destruction in mind. His agenda prioritizes war on humanity. He lusts for conquest.

He wants unchallenged US dominance. Millions of lost lives don't matter. They're a small price to pay. He's got lots to answer for.

Survival's up for grabs on his watch. Dismissive Americans don't understand. Perhaps they don't care. They're letting him get away with mass murder.

Since conflict began in early 2011, Washington's been arming, funding, training and directing Western-backed death squad invaders. Heavier weapons are planned.

On July 22, the Washington Post headlined "Congressional panels approve arms aid to Syrian opposition," saying:

House and Senate intelligence committees "approved CIA weapons shipments to opposition fighters in Syria, allowing the Obama administration to move ahead on the stalled program, senior congressional and administration officials said Monday."

Consensus was reached. Approval makes covert aid overt. Everything's ready to go. Increased arms flows will follow.

Some lawmakers want more. They want no-fly zone implementation. Doing so's an act of war. It's illegal without Security Council authorization.

So is attacking a nonbelligerent country. Syria threatens no one. It attacked no one. It's been invaded. Assad's doing his job.

He's fighting to save his country. Responsible leaders can do no less. He's wrongly vilified for doing the right thing.

If hawkish congressional members prevail, he'll have lots more to deal with. They want air attacks. They want direct US intervention. Perhaps it's coming. More on that below.

In recent weeks, Vice President Biden, CIA Director John Brennan and Secretary of State John Kerry have been heavily involved.

They're promoting full-scale war. They're selling it to skeptical congressional members. Plans are ready. Initiating them could happen any time. It's Obama's call.

On July 22, London's Guardian headlined "US military intervention in Syria would create 'unintended consequences.' "

On Monday, US Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey warned senators. He expressed concerns about greater escalation. Direct US involvement's risky, he said.

Once getting more heavily involved, it's hard to pull back, he stressed.

"We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state," he explained.

"We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action."

Each option considered entails costly uncertainties, he stressed. Arming and training opposition fighters is least risky. He estimates about "$500 million per year initially."

Doing so requires "several hundred to several thousand troops."

Limited air strikes entail "hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers."

Costs will run "in the billions." At best, efforts will achieve little more than "significant degradation of regime capabilities and an increase in regime desertions." Assad can withstand the strikes, he said.

No-fly zone implementation requires "hundreds of ground and sea-based aircraft, intelligence and electronic warfare support, and enablers for refueling and communications."

He estimates over $1 billion a month in cost. Implementation "may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because (Assad) relies overwhelmingly on surface fires - mortars, artillery, and missiles."

Even limited no-fly zone protection costs over $1 billion a month. It entails having "thousands of US ground forces" to maintain it.

Controlling Syria's chemical weapons requires "thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites."

To implement all of the above, some Pentagon sources believe about 70,000 US troops are needed. It's a substantial costly commitment. There's no assurance of success.

The entire effort may backfire. Syria's already a cauldron of violence and instability. It spilling cross-borders. It may affect the entire region and beyond.

According to Heritage Foundation vice president/foreign policy expert James Carafano, Pentagon commanders aren't eager for more regional war.

"Whatever they do, someone has to pay for it. Congress isn't in the mood to do a supplemental to fund a war. The Pentagon knows this, and the chiefs are scared to death about it."

Budget cutbacks are planned. Military priorities aren't included. Congress will authorize what's ordered. Carafano's wrong. Warrior nations crave war. They crave power.

Conflict distracts attention from domestic issues. America's economy is weak. Waging war focuses attention on other priorities.

Cato Institute vice president for defense and foreign policy studies Chris Preble said Dempsey showed proper caution. His job is to provide good military advice.

"Military leaders are put in this position frequently, and for the most part they should be hesitant to offer their opinions about taking various actions,