This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/us-said-to-weigh-military-responses-to-syrian-chemical-attack.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
U.S. to Weigh Military Responses to Syrian Chemical Attack U.S. Weighing Military Responses to Syrian Chemical Attack
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Senior Defense Department officials are developing options for a military strike in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of civilians on Tuesday, officials said on Thursday. WASHINGTON — President Trump is weighing options for a military strike in Syria, a possible prelude to a major expansion of American intervention that officials said Thursday could serve as a response to a devastating chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government.
At the same time, the nation’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, said the devastating chemical weapons attack in Syria made it clear that there was “no role” for President Bashar al-Assad to continue governing his country, and he promised a “serious response” from the United States. As Defense Secretary Jim Mattis prepared to meet with Mr. Trump in Florida to discuss military options, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson promised a “serious response” from the United States to the use of chemical weapons on Tuesday by the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Tillerson made it clear that the Trump administration saw “no role” for Mr. Assad to continue governing Syria.
The top-level consultations about military options involve Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as military officers at the United States Central Command. American officials said the options ranged from a limited cruise-missile strike to destroy a relatively isolated military installation to a multiday offensive that could involve the use of American warplanes against a range of targets, including Syria’s extensive air defenses. One other possibility, experts speculated, might be to strike the airfield that Syrian aircraft used to carry out the chemical attack on the rebel town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Officials said that developing military options for a president — a core responsibility of the Pentagon even in peacetime — did not mean that a decision to escalate American military involvement in Syria had been made. It was a dramatic turnabout for Mr. Trump, who until this week had displayed virtually no interest in a deeper role for the United States in the brutal civil war in Syria. Well before he became a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump pleaded with President Barack Obama in 2013 to avoid the kind of strike that his own Pentagon and military leaders are now actively gaming out.
Nonetheless, foreign policy analysts said President Trump could risk looking weak and indecisive if he does not act after saying on Wednesday that Syria had “crossed a lot of lines for me” with the chemical attack on civilians this week. As recently as this week, before seeing images of dying children gasping for breath during the chemical attack, Mr. Trump and his top aides hardly appeared inclined to more forcefully assert American power in the country.
American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government aircraft carried out the attack, a senior American official said. The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern Syria was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a statement on Thursday. But the change in Mr. Trump seemed to emerge during a Rose Garden news conference Wednesday afternoon, as he reacted to news, and images, of the chemical attack with horror and a newfound desire to respond.
The statement from Turkey, where many of the stricken Syrians were taken after the assault on Tuesday, was the most specific about the cause to date. “According to the results of preliminary tests,” the statement said, “patients were exposed to chemical material (Sarin).” In less than 24 hours, his shift was reflected at the Pentagon, where senior Defense Department and military officials began drafting options for Mr. Trump, and in Florida, where Mr. Tillerson hinted at a strong response to Mr. Assad’s actions.
The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified intelligence and planning. Mr. Mattis is traveling to Florida, where he is expected to discuss the crisis in Syria with Mr. Trump. Officials said that developing military options for the president — a core responsibility of the Pentagon even in peacetime — did not mean a final decision had been made to escalate American military involvement in Syria.
Defense Department officials said the military options that Mr. Mattis is taking to Mr. Trump include a range of choices for escalation. At one end would be cruise missile strikes launched from American warships to destroy Syrian radar facilities; at the other would be actions that fall just short of an outright declaration of war, with days of airstrikes to take out the Assad government’s integrated air defense systems. Nonetheless, foreign policy analysts said Mr. Trump risked looking indecisive if he did not act after declaring Wednesday that Syria had “crossed a lot of lines for me” with the chemical attack on civilians.
Mr. Tillerson, who was also in Florida, to greet President Xi Jinping of China before a summit meeting with Mr. Trump, said there was “no doubt in our minds” that Mr. Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical attacks that killed scores, including children. American intelligence has established with high confidence that a Syrian government warplane carried out the attack, in a rebel-held part of northern Syria, a senior official said. The poison used was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
In light of those attacks, he said, “it would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.” Even a limited military strike using sea- or air-launched cruise missiles might deter Mr. Assad from resorting again to chemical weapons. Even before Tuesday, his government had carried out numerous attacks with chlorine, whose use in war violates the international convention banning chemical weapons.
Mr. Tillerson said Mr. Assad’s departure would have to come about through a “political process,” but he left open the possibility of a military strike by the United States as a response to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. But any use of military force has its risks. With an airstrike, officials would need to avoid harming Russian military personnel in Syria, as that could set off an inadvertent confrontation with Moscow.
“We are considering an appropriate response for this chemical weapons attack,” Mr. Tillerson told reporters. “A serious matter requires a serious response.” Another danger is that Shiite militias in Iraq that are backed by Iran might try to retaliate against the more than 5,000 American troops in Iraq. Iran has been a staunch supporter of Mr. Assad, but Washington and Tehran have a common enemy in the Islamic State militant group.
Mr. Tillerson declined to elaborate on what form such a response might take. Earlier, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, was also cagey about what Mr. Trump was considering in the aftermath of the heartbreaking images from the site of the chemical attacks. The change in the Trump administration’s language on Syria, if not yet its actions, has been stark. Just last week, Mr. Tillerson and Nikki R. Haley, the American ambassador to the United Nations, signaled that the administration would no longer press for Mr. Assad to leave power as part of an arrangement to end the fighting in Syria. Some Republican lawmakers — notably Senators John McCain of Arizona and Marco Rubio of Florida — say those remarks may have led Mr. Assad to calculate that there would be no serious international repercussions to his use of poison gas.
The Obama administration had prepared plans to strike Syrian targets with sea-launched cruise missiles after an August 2013 chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 civilians, including hundreds of children — plans previously criticized by Mr. Trump.
That proposal was shelved when Mr. Obama decided instead to negotiate an agreement with the Russians to eliminate Syria’s declared chemical weapons arsenal and the equipment to make poison gas.
Andrew J. Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Mr. Assad’s decision to resort again to chemical weapons reflected the fact that his troops were stretched thin.
“Assad has only an estimated 18,000 deployable troops to retake his entire country, and the Russians have been pushing him to send his forces east so he can try to build up his credibility in the fight against the Islamic State,” Mr. Tabler said. “He doesn’t have the manpower to do that and defend Hama and other territory he controls. So he has turned to chemical weapons.”
Mr. Tillerson — who, with Mr. Mattis, was in Florida for meetings between Mr. Trump and Xi Jinping, the Chinese president — said there was “no doubt in our minds” that Mr. Assad’s government was responsible for the chemical attack, which killed scores of people, including children.
In light of the attack, Mr. Tillerson said, “it would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people.”
Mr. Tillerson said Mr. Assad’s departure would have to come about through a “political process,” but he left open the possibility of a military strike by the United States in response to the use of chemical weapons.
“We are considering an appropriate response for this chemical weapons attack,” he told reporters. “A serious matter requires a serious response.”
Asked whether Mr. Assad should step down, Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One, “What happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity, and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so I guess something should happen.”
Mr. Trump declined to say what specific steps he might take to respond. “I don’t want to say what I’m going to be doing with respect to Syria,” he said.
A limited airstrike would not be sufficient to topple Mr. Assad, in the view of military analysts. And it remains unclear if Mr. Trump would be willing to provide military support to Syrian rebels who oppose Mr. Assad, or if he could persuade the Russians to try to use their leverage to coax him to leave power. Even if the Russians withdrew their support from Mr. Assad, which seems unlikely, Iran is fully in his corner.
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, was also cagey about what Mr. Trump was considering in the aftermath of the heartbreaking images from the site of the chemical attacks.
“He is not one to telegraph those issues or options until he is ready to make them,” Mr. Spicer told reporters aboard Air Force One as the president traveled for the summit meeting with Mr. Xi.“He is not one to telegraph those issues or options until he is ready to make them,” Mr. Spicer told reporters aboard Air Force One as the president traveled for the summit meeting with Mr. Xi.
Mr. Spicer raised the possibility that Mr. Trump might embrace a greater role in protecting Syrians against attacks like the one this week. He said the president’s No. 1 priority remains protecting Americans, but he added, “That doesn’t mean we can’t support efforts like safe zones throughout Syria.” Mr. Spicer raised the possibility that Mr. Trump would embrace a greater role in protecting Syrians against attacks like the one this week. He said the president’s No. 1 priority remained protecting Americans, but he added, “That doesn’t mean we can’t support efforts like safe zones throughout Syria.”
Asked whether Mr. Assad should step down, Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One that “what happened in Syria is a disgrace to humanity, and he’s there, and I guess he’s running things, so I guess something should happen.”
Mr. Trump called the chemical weapons attacks “truly one of the egregious crimes,” but he also declined to say what specific steps he might take to respond.
“I don’t want to say what I’m going to be doing with respect to Syria,” he said.
The possibility of military strikes by the United States in Syria is complicated by the presence of Russian forces in the country. After blaming Mr. Assad and the Syrian government for the chemical attack, Mr. Tillerson warned Russia about its support for Syria. “It is very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support for the Assad regime,” he said.
The Obama administration prepared plans to strike Syrian targets with sea-launched cruise missiles after an August 2013 Syrian chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 civilians, including hundreds of children.
Those plans were shelved when Mr. Obama decided instead to negotiate an agreement with the Russians to eliminate Syria’s declared chemical weapons arsenal and the equipment to make poison gas.
The Turkish statement said the sarin conclusion had been based on autopsies on three victims performed at Turkey’s Adana Forensic Medicine Institution with the participation of representatives from the World Health Organization and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a group based in The Hague that monitors compliance with the global treaty that bans such munitions.
Mr. Assad’s government signed that treaty less than four years ago and agreed to give up its chemical arsenal after the August 2013 chemical weapons attack, which left hundreds dead near Damascus.
The Turkish statement did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the telling symptoms seen in the victims included “lung edema, increase in lung weight and bleeding in lungs.”