By MARK
LANDLER and HELENE COOPERAUG. 25, 2014
The New
York Times
Defense
officials said Monday evening that the Pentagon was sending in manned and
unmanned reconnaissance flights over Syria , using a combination of aircraft,
including drones and possibly U2 spy planes. Mr. Obama approved the flights
over the weekend, a senior administration official said.
The flights
are a significant step toward direct American military action in Syria , an
intervention that could alter the battlefield in the nation’s three-year civil
war.
Administration
officials said the United
States did not intend to notify the Assad
government of the planned flights. Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly called for the
ouster of Mr. Assad, is loath to be seen as aiding the Syrian government, even
inadvertently.
As a result
the Pentagon is drafting military options that would strike the militant
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria , or ISIS, near the largely erased border
between those two nations, as opposed to more deeply inside Syria . The
administration is also moving to bolster American support for the moderate
Syrian rebels who view Mr. Assad as their main foe.
On Monday, Syria warned the White House that it needed to
coordinate airstrikes against ISIS or it would
view them as a breach of its sovereignty and an “act of aggression.” But it
signaled its readiness to work with the United States in a coordinated
campaign against the militants.
The
reconnaissance flights would not be the first time the United States
has entered Syrian airspace without seeking permission. In July, American
Special Operations forces carried out an unsuccessful rescue attempt for
hostages held by ISIS, including the journalist James Foley, whose death was
revealed last week in an ISIS video.
Mr. Obama
met Monday with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and other advisers to discuss
options, but the White House said Mr. Obama had not yet decided whether to
order military action in Syria .
The White House made clear that if the president did act, he had no plans to
collaborate with Mr. Assad or even inform him in advance of any operation.
“It is not
the case that the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a
deputy national security adviser. “Joining forces with Assad would essentially
permanently alienate the Sunni population in both Syria and Iraq, who are
necessary to dislodging ISIL,” he said, using the group’s alternative name, the
Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
Still,
administration officials acknowledge that the sudden threat from ISIS to
Americans — several of whom are still held by the militants in Syria — had complicated the calculus for the United States
in a conflict Mr. Obama has largely avoided.
“There are
a lot of cross pressures here in this situation,” the White House press
secretary, Josh Earnest, told reporters. “There’s no doubt about that. But our
policy as it relates to pursuing American interests in this region of the world
are actually really clear, that we want to make sure that we are safeguarding
American personnel.”
Under plans
being developed by the administration, a senior official said, the United States could target leaders of the
militant group in and around their stronghold, the northern city of Raqqa , as well as in
isolated outposts to the east, near the Iraqi border.
While the
Syrian government has the capability to partly defend its airspace from
American warplanes, American fighter jets can fly close to the border and fire
on targets in Syria
using long-range precision weapons.
The
American military could also jam Syria ’s air-defense systems by
sending signals that would make it difficult or impossible for radar to pick up
American fighter planes entering Syrian airspace. Such a move would give
fighters a limited amount of time to hit ISIS targets or camps before leaving Syria . The
military could also use B-2 stealth bombers, which are almost invisible to
radar, or could fire at stationary targets in Syria using Tomahawk cruise
missiles, launched from ships at sea.
On Monday,
even as he warned the Obama administration against unilateral strikes in Syria , Walid Muallem, the foreign minister,
said, “Syria
is ready for cooperation and coordination at the regional and international
level to fight terrorism.” Mr. Assad has long tried to rally support by
portraying the insurgency against him as a terrorist threat. He has made little
headway with the West or his Arab neighbors.
“We’re
going to find ourselves maneuvered into a very uncomfortable position,” said
Frederic C. Hof, a former State Department official who worked on Syria policy.
“We’re unconsciously walking into an ambush.”
The White
House is betting that airstrikes against ISIS in Syria might help moderate
Syrian opposition groups, which are opposed to the Assad government — and which
are also fighting ISIS themselves, in Aleppo. The Free Syrian Army, which the United States has provided with training and
equipment, is at risk of losing access to aid and other supplies from Turkey to ISIS
militants.
A spokesman
for the rebel coalition, Oubai Shahbandar, said, “The Free Syrian Army commanders on the
ground fighting ISIS in northern Syria
have declared their readiness to coordinate with the U.S.
in striking ISIS .”
The Free
Syrian Army has nowhere near the firepower or ground strength as either the
Kurdish pesh merga fighters who have worked with the American military against
ISIS in Iraq ,
or even the Iraqi Army. And the weapons and ammunition that the administration
have been supplying to the rebels have so far failed to tilt the battle in
their favor.
In an
interview on Monday, however, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press
secretary, said that Secretary Hagel was “looking at a train-and-equip program
for the Free Syrian Army.”
Some
experts noted that the administration had another strong incentive not to do
anything to help Mr. Assad. A central element of its strategy is to assemble a
coalition in the region against ISIS, enlisting partners like Jordan , Turkey
and Saudi Arabia .
“Any hint
that our actions might further reinforce Assad’s grip on power would make it
hard to build that coalition,” said Brian Katulis, a national security expert
with the Center for American Progress, a think tank with close ties to the
White House. “They all want to see him go.”
No comments:
Post a Comment