Editorials & Other Articles

sad sally

(2,627 posts) Thu Mar 8, 2012, 02:09 AM Mar 2012

Official: Panetta misinterpreted on 'permission' for Syria intervention

(CNN) -- The Pentagon tried to clarify remarks made by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, when he told a Senate committtee on Wednesday that the U.S. military is seeking "permission" from a foreign organization to intervene in Syria.

"He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body," a defense official told CNN.
-----
Sessions said, "We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?"

Panetta replied, "You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/07/politics/panetta-u-s-intervention-syria/

International permission first, then congress may or may not be told?

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Official: Panetta misinterpreted on 'permission' for Syria intervention (Original Post) sad sally Mar 2012 OP

'International permission first, then congress may or may not be told?' elleng Mar 2012 #1

Yes, because unilateral action is to be avoided. tabatha Mar 2012 #2

Right. elleng Mar 2012 #3

Well, degrading Syria's air defenses, Owlet Mar 2012 #4

Maybe... sad sally Mar 2012 #5

elleng

(131,176 posts)

1. 'International permission first, then congress may or may not be told?'

Reply to sad sally (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 02:19 AM

Mar 2012

For those who want to interpret it that way. Others may recognise 'the need for an international mandate.'

tabatha

(18,795 posts)

2. Yes, because unilateral action is to be avoided.

Reply to elleng (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 02:38 AM

Mar 2012

And international cooperation cannot be assumed until it is found. Once it is found, then the US can consider that option.

However, I do not believe that the US will get involved militarily. They have even told Israel that humanitarian action by Israel will be risky. "Regarding Israel they offered humanitarian help yesterday only to be told by the US that it might be "provocative". Syria has a lot of chemical/biological weapons and the worry is that he might give some to Hezzbolah. If that happened then Israel would retaliate with extreme force if any arrived in Haifa. If Syria started firing them off then not only Israel but the US and Turkey and thus NATO would get involved. "

It is a potential big mess.

elleng

(131,176 posts)

3. Right.

Reply to tabatha (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 02:42 AM

Mar 2012

Thanks.

Owlet

(1,248 posts)

4. Well, degrading Syria's air defenses,

Reply to sad sally (Original post)

Thu Mar 8, 2012, 07:08 AM

Mar 2012

which would be a requirement for any further air action, would certainly make reaching Iran from Israel a tad easier, wouldn't it. Naw..that couldn't POSSIBLY be a motive for US 'intervention'.

sad sally

(2,627 posts)

5. Maybe...

Reply to Owlet (Reply #4)

Fri Mar 9, 2012, 06:55 PM

Mar 2012

In his recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, [5] given in advance of President Obama's American Israel Public Affairs Committee speech, the president, inter alia, was questioned about Syria. His response was very clear:

GOLDBERG: Can you just talk about Syria as a strategic issue? Talk about it as a humanitarian issue, as well; but it would seem to me that one way to weaken and further isolate Iran is to remove or help remove Iran's only Arab ally.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Absolutely.

Do these Western interventionist proselytizers really believe that the onslaught on Syria is only about democracy and reform? Obama said it plainly. It was always about Iran. And, as Europe and America increasingly become bystanders to a Qatari and Saudi frenzy to overthrow a fellow Arab leader by any means it takes, do these "apostles" truly think that these absolute Arab monarchies simply share the Guardian's or Channel Four's nice humanitarian aspirations for Syria's future? Do these reporters really believe that the armed insurgents that Gulf states are financing and arming are nothing more than well-intentioned reformists, who have simply been driven to violence through Assad's incalcitrance? Some perhaps do, but others perhaps are simply "saying these things" to prepare the battlefield?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC09Ak03.html

Reply to this discussion