On July 17th, the House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee, held a hearing on “The Security Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic—Implications for U.S. National Security and U.S. Policy Options”. The Chairman of the large committee, Howard McKeon (R-CA), opened the hearing. Partisan lines were clearly evident during opening speeches. Chairman McKeon said the hearing focused on possible U.S. military involvement, while Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) conversely remarked thereafter that the situation appeared far too complex for such plans.
The crisis in Syria has been nothing short of a conundrum for U.S. policymakers. As Ranking Member Smith stated, “It is obvious we want a new a regime, a stable regime supported by the Syrian people.” The UN recently stated that this is the worst humanitarian crisis is since Rwanda. Many have pegged the Syrian death toll over 100,000—many of those civilian casualites. The UN estimates that 6000 people flee every day, and about 5000 die each month. The projected number of refugees has topped 1,000,000 by some estimates. Most disturbing are reports that the conflict is merging with violence in Iraq.
Witnesses at the hearing included Mr. Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ambassador Frederic C. Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East; and Ms. Mona Yacoubian, a project director at the Pathways to Progress division at the Stimson Center.
Mr. Abrams concluded that if the al-Assad regime won, it would be a win for Tehran. Further, Tehran’s interests are obviously very different than Washington’s. He advocated that the U.S. can and should do much to affect the outcome in Syria. He also posited that a ‘win’ for the U.S. would not only reduce Iranian influence, but also curb Hezbollah’s capability.
Mr. Abrams strongly pushed for limited military options. Primarily, he called for an air strike targeting Assad’s aerial assets. He argued that if Israel’s Air Force had successfully attacked targets in Syria, so could the U.S. Air Force.
Amb. Hof identified Russia as a key obstacle to a peaceful, post-Assad regime. He said the U.S. must tell Russia it would act if Moscow does not help to stop the Assad regime’s mass terror operations against vulnerable populations. Amb. Hof solutions were not as overtly hawkish as Mr. Abrams, but he did say that after exhausting all diplomatic tools, military intervention should be considered. He said U.S. unilateralism should be avoided and a no-fly zone would not help the situation. Amb. Hof identified artillery as the greatest tool of destruction in Assad’s arsenal.
Ms. Yacoubian identified the geopolitical situation on the ground in her opening statements. She said that the Syrian military has been able to consolidate its efforts while the Syrian rebels have yet to coalesce and lack unified command and control structures. Even worse, she reported that rebel groups are starting to turn their weapons on one another. This ugly combination, she said, “creates a protracted military struggle where neither the regime nor rebels will be victorious anytime soon.” Ms. Yacoubian flatly stated that a military solution in not the answer, at this point, and only political options could be viable solutions.
All witnesses noted the immense geostrategic interest the U.S. has in Syria. While each had a different perspective on U.S. action, all contended more could and should be done.
Photo: Freedom House (cc).
a global affairs media network
Testimony to House Armed Services Committee: More Must Be Done in Syria
July 29, 2013
On July 17th, the House of Representatives’ Armed Services Committee, held a hearing on “The Security Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic—Implications for U.S. National Security and U.S. Policy Options”. The Chairman of the large committee, Howard McKeon (R-CA), opened the hearing. Partisan lines were clearly evident during opening speeches. Chairman McKeon said the hearing focused on possible U.S. military involvement, while Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) conversely remarked thereafter that the situation appeared far too complex for such plans.
The crisis in Syria has been nothing short of a conundrum for U.S. policymakers. As Ranking Member Smith stated, “It is obvious we want a new a regime, a stable regime supported by the Syrian people.” The UN recently stated that this is the worst humanitarian crisis is since Rwanda. Many have pegged the Syrian death toll over 100,000—many of those civilian casualites. The UN estimates that 6000 people flee every day, and about 5000 die each month. The projected number of refugees has topped 1,000,000 by some estimates. Most disturbing are reports that the conflict is merging with violence in Iraq.
Witnesses at the hearing included Mr. Elliot Abrams, a senior fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ambassador Frederic C. Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East; and Ms. Mona Yacoubian, a project director at the Pathways to Progress division at the Stimson Center.
Mr. Abrams concluded that if the al-Assad regime won, it would be a win for Tehran. Further, Tehran’s interests are obviously very different than Washington’s. He advocated that the U.S. can and should do much to affect the outcome in Syria. He also posited that a ‘win’ for the U.S. would not only reduce Iranian influence, but also curb Hezbollah’s capability.
Mr. Abrams strongly pushed for limited military options. Primarily, he called for an air strike targeting Assad’s aerial assets. He argued that if Israel’s Air Force had successfully attacked targets in Syria, so could the U.S. Air Force.
Amb. Hof identified Russia as a key obstacle to a peaceful, post-Assad regime. He said the U.S. must tell Russia it would act if Moscow does not help to stop the Assad regime’s mass terror operations against vulnerable populations. Amb. Hof solutions were not as overtly hawkish as Mr. Abrams, but he did say that after exhausting all diplomatic tools, military intervention should be considered. He said U.S. unilateralism should be avoided and a no-fly zone would not help the situation. Amb. Hof identified artillery as the greatest tool of destruction in Assad’s arsenal.
Ms. Yacoubian identified the geopolitical situation on the ground in her opening statements. She said that the Syrian military has been able to consolidate its efforts while the Syrian rebels have yet to coalesce and lack unified command and control structures. Even worse, she reported that rebel groups are starting to turn their weapons on one another. This ugly combination, she said, “creates a protracted military struggle where neither the regime nor rebels will be victorious anytime soon.” Ms. Yacoubian flatly stated that a military solution in not the answer, at this point, and only political options could be viable solutions.
All witnesses noted the immense geostrategic interest the U.S. has in Syria. While each had a different perspective on U.S. action, all contended more could and should be done.
Photo: Freedom House (cc).
