US military has contingency for civilian safe havens if Syria violence escalates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/19/us-military-plan-syria-escalates

Version 0 of 1.

US defence secretary Leon Panetta disclosed Thursday the Pentagon has plans in place for establishing humanitarian corridors in Syria, an idea publicly aired by French president Nicholas Sarkozy earlier in the day in Paris.

Panetta, giving evidence to the House armed services committee, said the plan for humanitarian corridors was under review in the Pentagon along with other military options for intervention aimed at helping the Syrian opposition and toppling Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.

The Pentagon remains reluctant to intervene militarily in Syria, saying that the conditions that existed for action in Libya do not yet apply in the country.

Panetta, citing the divided nature of opposition groups inside Syria, said: "Outside military intervention could make a volatile situation worse".

But Panetta, giving evidence alongside the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Martin Dempsey, said that all military options are under review in the Pentagon, ready to be implemented if Barack Obama gives the order.

Sarkozy – in an interview with Europe 1 radio ahead of the meeting of Friends of Syria group of nations that includes the US – called for humanitarian corridors.

A similar humanitarian corridor was established in Kurdish Iraq after the first Gulf War, providing a safe haven from Saddam Hussein's forces. A humanitarian corridor would also provide the Syrian opposition with a similar safe haven and a potential territorial base inside Syria.

Panetta, responding to a question about Sarkozy's proposal, said the humanitarian corridor was among options the US had looked at and a plan was in place. The US stood ready to do what the international community decided, he said.

Dempsey said there were various plans in place. "Should we be called, our responsibility is clear – provide the secretary of the defence and the president with options," he said. "This is what the nation expects of us."

He added: "If asked to do so, we have the military capability."

The eventual option would depend on the outcome being sought: would it involve just stopping violence, or removing Assad? Dempsey would then have to look at the feasibility of any such option. Once the outcome was decided, he would then have to make clear to the president and Panetta the risk to the force involved.

Panetta said that at present there is no plan to put US boots on the ground or to act unilaterally.

The Pentagon, under the then-secretary of defense Robert Gates, was extremely reluctant last year to become involved in Libya, and the eventual push came from secretary of state Hillary Clinton and from the White House.

While the US put no soldiers on the ground in Libya, it provided the air power that proved decisive in support of the Libyan opposition and the overthrow of the Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi.

The US position towards Syria is evolving more slowly, but the Obama administration has come out in favour of regime change and more recently in providing nonlethal aid to the opposition groups.

Panetta stressed that diplomatic efforts were far from exhausted, including to get international monitors in place in Syria and a move to political reform.

The end game is to remove Assad. "Anything that takes out the Assad regime is a step in the right direction," Panetta said.

Assad will continue to resist the diplomatic efforts but it is just a matter of time before he goes, he said.

"From every angle the situation in Syria is enormously complex," he said. "There is no silver bullet."

Dempsey expressed a tentative hope that the Syrian military might yet change. He said they may be fearful of repercussions for their violence against the civilian population. "There is reason to believe the military could come to realise they are on a path to own destruction," he said.

Congress is divided over whether to intervene in Syria. Both the Republican chairman of the House armed services committee, Howard "Buck" McKeon, and Adam Smith, the highest-ranking Democrat on the committee, expressed reluctance to implement military action. John McCain, the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate armed services committee, is urging military intervention.