SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Panetta Orders US Missiles, Boots on the Ground Along Syrian Border
Warnings of blowback as US Secretary of Defense sends US weapon systems to increasingly unstable region
Dec 14, 2012
Amid a deepening involvement by the US in the ongoing civil war in Syria, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced he has ordered the deployment of two Patriot missile batteries and 400 US soldiers to Turkey as part of a wider NATO effort to militarize the border between the two countries.
Panetta signed the order shortly before an unannounced visit to the country on Friday. Speaking from the US Air Base in Incirlik, he said: "We are deploying two Patriot batteries here to Turkey along with the troops that are necessary to man those batteries."
As The New York Times reports, Panetta told the gathered personnel at Incirlik that the US "was working with Turkey, Jordan and Israel to monitor Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons, and warned of 'serious consequences' if Syria used them, but he did not offer any specifics."
"We have drawn up plans for presenting to the president," Mr. Panetta said. "We have to be ready."
The recent reports about Syria's possession of or intent to use "chemical weapons" has reminded many of bogus claims by the US about Iraq's stockpiles of similar weapons that were used to goad the American public into the invasion of that country in 2003.
As FAIR's Peter Hart chronicled this week:
U.S. officials were confident about a number of things before the invasion of Iraq-most of which were not true. The Syria stories in fact most closely resemble stories in 2003 that alleged that Saddam Hussein had established a "red line" around Baghdad: If U.S. troops were to cross that line, Iraq would deploy chemical weapons.
More than anything, as the US moves troops into the region, where border hostilities could well escalate, the increasing worry is that rhetoric about Syria's chemical weapons would be used as a pretext for military intervention by US forces or NATO.
Friday's announcement was not a surprise, as NATO had previously approved the placement of Patriot missiles along Turkey's southern border. In addition to the two US batteries, both Germany and the Netherlands will send troops and missiles of their own.
Earlier this week, the US formally recognized the Free Syrian Army, the main opposition force to Syian President Bashar al-Assad's government. That move also raised concerns that the US was deepening its involvement in the civil war even as factions within those opposition forces are deeply hostile to the US.
The blowback from all of these decisions are drawing concern from experts on the region, who fear that by ignoring a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis in Syria while increasing the flow of weapons to the region is a recipe for a further, if unpredictable, escalation of violence.
Professor Paul Rogers, explaining the intricacies of the rebel forces and role of previous US blunders in the region, wrote on Thursday:
Washington's diplomatic recognition and terrorist designation aim to separate these radical elements from the main body of the rebels. In all probability, though, they are too embedded in the overall insurgency for this to be done. Moreover, their clear paramilitary capabilities mean they will be well placed to help ensure that, if and when the Assad regime falls, the aftermath will be an unstable and insecure Syria.
One consequence of the western-aided overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya was the exit of Tuareg mercenaries to Mali, where they established control over much of the country's north - only to be displaced by Ansar Dine and other Islamist groups. This example of an unanticipated "blowback" may well yet lead to western involvement in a war in Mali (see "Mali, preparing for war", 15 November 2012).
In Syria there is another form of blowback underway - this time a direct consequence of the Iraq war. It is likely to prove to be an immense complication in any western attempt to determine what happens in Syria if the Assad regime finally falls some time in 2013.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Amid a deepening involvement by the US in the ongoing civil war in Syria, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced he has ordered the deployment of two Patriot missile batteries and 400 US soldiers to Turkey as part of a wider NATO effort to militarize the border between the two countries.
Panetta signed the order shortly before an unannounced visit to the country on Friday. Speaking from the US Air Base in Incirlik, he said: "We are deploying two Patriot batteries here to Turkey along with the troops that are necessary to man those batteries."
As The New York Times reports, Panetta told the gathered personnel at Incirlik that the US "was working with Turkey, Jordan and Israel to monitor Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons, and warned of 'serious consequences' if Syria used them, but he did not offer any specifics."
"We have drawn up plans for presenting to the president," Mr. Panetta said. "We have to be ready."
The recent reports about Syria's possession of or intent to use "chemical weapons" has reminded many of bogus claims by the US about Iraq's stockpiles of similar weapons that were used to goad the American public into the invasion of that country in 2003.
As FAIR's Peter Hart chronicled this week:
U.S. officials were confident about a number of things before the invasion of Iraq-most of which were not true. The Syria stories in fact most closely resemble stories in 2003 that alleged that Saddam Hussein had established a "red line" around Baghdad: If U.S. troops were to cross that line, Iraq would deploy chemical weapons.
More than anything, as the US moves troops into the region, where border hostilities could well escalate, the increasing worry is that rhetoric about Syria's chemical weapons would be used as a pretext for military intervention by US forces or NATO.
Friday's announcement was not a surprise, as NATO had previously approved the placement of Patriot missiles along Turkey's southern border. In addition to the two US batteries, both Germany and the Netherlands will send troops and missiles of their own.
Earlier this week, the US formally recognized the Free Syrian Army, the main opposition force to Syian President Bashar al-Assad's government. That move also raised concerns that the US was deepening its involvement in the civil war even as factions within those opposition forces are deeply hostile to the US.
The blowback from all of these decisions are drawing concern from experts on the region, who fear that by ignoring a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis in Syria while increasing the flow of weapons to the region is a recipe for a further, if unpredictable, escalation of violence.
Professor Paul Rogers, explaining the intricacies of the rebel forces and role of previous US blunders in the region, wrote on Thursday:
Washington's diplomatic recognition and terrorist designation aim to separate these radical elements from the main body of the rebels. In all probability, though, they are too embedded in the overall insurgency for this to be done. Moreover, their clear paramilitary capabilities mean they will be well placed to help ensure that, if and when the Assad regime falls, the aftermath will be an unstable and insecure Syria.
One consequence of the western-aided overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya was the exit of Tuareg mercenaries to Mali, where they established control over much of the country's north - only to be displaced by Ansar Dine and other Islamist groups. This example of an unanticipated "blowback" may well yet lead to western involvement in a war in Mali (see "Mali, preparing for war", 15 November 2012).
In Syria there is another form of blowback underway - this time a direct consequence of the Iraq war. It is likely to prove to be an immense complication in any western attempt to determine what happens in Syria if the Assad regime finally falls some time in 2013.
Amid a deepening involvement by the US in the ongoing civil war in Syria, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced he has ordered the deployment of two Patriot missile batteries and 400 US soldiers to Turkey as part of a wider NATO effort to militarize the border between the two countries.
Panetta signed the order shortly before an unannounced visit to the country on Friday. Speaking from the US Air Base in Incirlik, he said: "We are deploying two Patriot batteries here to Turkey along with the troops that are necessary to man those batteries."
As The New York Times reports, Panetta told the gathered personnel at Incirlik that the US "was working with Turkey, Jordan and Israel to monitor Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons, and warned of 'serious consequences' if Syria used them, but he did not offer any specifics."
"We have drawn up plans for presenting to the president," Mr. Panetta said. "We have to be ready."
The recent reports about Syria's possession of or intent to use "chemical weapons" has reminded many of bogus claims by the US about Iraq's stockpiles of similar weapons that were used to goad the American public into the invasion of that country in 2003.
As FAIR's Peter Hart chronicled this week:
U.S. officials were confident about a number of things before the invasion of Iraq-most of which were not true. The Syria stories in fact most closely resemble stories in 2003 that alleged that Saddam Hussein had established a "red line" around Baghdad: If U.S. troops were to cross that line, Iraq would deploy chemical weapons.
More than anything, as the US moves troops into the region, where border hostilities could well escalate, the increasing worry is that rhetoric about Syria's chemical weapons would be used as a pretext for military intervention by US forces or NATO.
Friday's announcement was not a surprise, as NATO had previously approved the placement of Patriot missiles along Turkey's southern border. In addition to the two US batteries, both Germany and the Netherlands will send troops and missiles of their own.
Earlier this week, the US formally recognized the Free Syrian Army, the main opposition force to Syian President Bashar al-Assad's government. That move also raised concerns that the US was deepening its involvement in the civil war even as factions within those opposition forces are deeply hostile to the US.
The blowback from all of these decisions are drawing concern from experts on the region, who fear that by ignoring a diplomatic and political solution to the crisis in Syria while increasing the flow of weapons to the region is a recipe for a further, if unpredictable, escalation of violence.
Professor Paul Rogers, explaining the intricacies of the rebel forces and role of previous US blunders in the region, wrote on Thursday:
Washington's diplomatic recognition and terrorist designation aim to separate these radical elements from the main body of the rebels. In all probability, though, they are too embedded in the overall insurgency for this to be done. Moreover, their clear paramilitary capabilities mean they will be well placed to help ensure that, if and when the Assad regime falls, the aftermath will be an unstable and insecure Syria.
One consequence of the western-aided overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya was the exit of Tuareg mercenaries to Mali, where they established control over much of the country's north - only to be displaced by Ansar Dine and other Islamist groups. This example of an unanticipated "blowback" may well yet lead to western involvement in a war in Mali (see "Mali, preparing for war", 15 November 2012).
In Syria there is another form of blowback underway - this time a direct consequence of the Iraq war. It is likely to prove to be an immense complication in any western attempt to determine what happens in Syria if the Assad regime finally falls some time in 2013.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.