See other War, War, War Articles
Title: 75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls
Source:
RT
URL Source: http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-troops-458/
Published: Sep 5, 2013
Author: RT
Post Date: 2013-09-08 06:05:41 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Syria, occupation, chemical weapons, policing
Views: 274
Comments: 23
The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus’ chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches. The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was compiled with the aim of “responding to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons.” It states that Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have been secured by Syrian special forces. “Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Assad regime’s loss of control,” the document reads Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of Assad would present a scenario “100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya.” In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research facilities, “The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,” the document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report. Meanwhile, a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, although section 3 of the draft ostensibly ruled out US combat operations on the ground. The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities. While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria." The Obama administration’s vacillations on Syria were perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry suggested it would be preferable to give the White House the power to send in ground forces in the event that Syria “imploded” or if chemical weapons were at risk of being obtained by extremists. "I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he told the committee in the run up to the vote. After being told by Senator Bob Corker – the top Republican on the committee – his sentiments regarding boots on the ground were not “a very appropriate response,” Kerry quickly backtracked. "Let's shut the door now," Kerry said. "The answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war." Having cleared committee, the measure authorizing force in Syria is expected to reach the Senate floor next week. Senator Rand Paul, a republican with strong ties to the Tea Party movement, has threatened a filibuster.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: GreyLmist (#0)
A month ago we didn't even know that either side has chemical weapons. Now we seem to know exactly where they are and how many thousands of soldiers WE will need to take them away. In the meantime, other countries (and some experts here) are not convinced about which side has the chem weapons. Simple fact, chem weapons, unlike nukes, are not so difficult to make. We could seize all that exist in Syria right now and both sides could manufacture an equal number within a short time.
That would not go well, at all. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
That would not go well, at all. Boots on the ground would indeed not go over well at all. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Simple fact, chem weapons, unlike nukes, are not so difficult to make. We could seize all that exist in Syria right now and both sides could manufacture an equal number within a short time. A U.N. team could go in, without bombing anything, and get the chemical weapons if securing those was actually what this is about. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Afaik from what's been reported, 4 [confirmed] countries have chemical weapons. One of them is the U.S., Edited for the strikethrough correction + bracketed insert and to add this Wikipedia reference: Chemical weapon: As of 2012, only four nations are confirmed as having chemical weapons: the United States, Russia, North Korea and Syria.[7][contradictory] ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I believe you are correct about this. Syria is on the ropes. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
The fact that they are mulling over how many troops will be needed to "secure the chemical weapons" is not a good sign. If the U.S. commits these troops to Syria, it could unleash an insurgency far worse than that which emerged in Iraq. It would be a fatal error on Obama's part to do so. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928. 133 nations are listed as state parties[3] to the treaty—Ukraine acceded August 7, 2003 and is the most recent member nation.[4] This treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world." While the treaty prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons, it does not address the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons. Later treaties would address these omissions and have been enacted. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the most recent arms control agreement with the force of International law. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. This agreement outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an independent organization based in The Hague.[5] The OPCW administers the terms of the CWC to 188 signatories which represents 98% of the global population. Of the stockpiles, 44,131 of the 71,194 tonnes declared (61.99%) have been destroyed. The OPCW has conducted 4,167 inspections at 195 chemical weapon-related and 1,103 industrial sites. These inspections have affected the sovereign territory of 81 States Parties since April 1997. Worldwide, 4,913 industrial facilities are subject to inspection provisions.[6] Flashback to August 1: Mr. Obama Moves on Chemical Plant Safety - NYTimes.com ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Yeah, but the problem with that is that it wouldn't be fatal TO Obama. He has lots of armed goons protecting him while telling the rest of us "Guns make us less safe." And yet, when people signed a petition to make the White House a gun free zone Obama didn't approve of that. Paul Craig Roberts
Why isn't Bill Clinton in prison for ordering the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993 where CS gas was used? It is illegal to use it against enemies in war and yet he paid no price whatsoever after that was done to Americans. Paul Craig Roberts
Kerry quote from the article: "there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war." Sounds like he's under the delusion that putting American boots on the ground to secure chemical weapons wouldn't involve them in the civil war...or he's just lying to make people think that none of our troops would be sent in to do that...or he expects the French troops to go in alone and get shot at doing that...or other Non-American troops like the Israelis and maybe the Saudis to go in with the French forces? Edited for grammar. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Good question. Janet Reno should have gone to prison for that too. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Whatever non-Syrians go in there, they will be targets. Sign the petition - “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
6 minute video: Sonny Bono grills Janet Reno over Waco
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Undoudtedly any foreign troops would be targets but a U.N. team might be guarded by the Syrian Military. Thanks for that reminder. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Sonny was whacked for his pursuit of those murders and the narco-crimes going on.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Strange that Michael Kennedy had a similar "accident" days before. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I agree. And Hillary should be right there with them for aiding and abetting in war crimes. Paul Craig Roberts
And of course she sat right there and lied like the rest of the gestapo does. Paul Craig Roberts
I agree. And Hillary should be right there with them for aiding and abetting in war crimes. CS gas || Waco siege || List of parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention I think Waco had something to do with getting the U.S. to ratify the CW Convention in 1997 during Clinton's Presidency. It had been signed onto in the last days of GHW Bush's term. Until it was ratified, I think it was not considered an official War Crime here to use CS under conditions of war. It's still used by police in many countries that have ratified the CW Convention (which only prohibits Military use). Knowingly gassing children should have been actionable as criminal, War Crime or not. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Well, that really sucks. Now, Obummer wants the U.N. to control our guns. That will never happen. Too many crazy people with hunting rifles and camouflage out there. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
The Waco siege was a siege of a compound belonging to the religious group Branch Davidians by American federal and Texas state law enforcement and military between February 28 and April 19, 1993.[4] The Branch Davidians, a Christian[5] sect led by David Koresh, lived at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Elk, Texas,[6][7] nine miles (14 kilometers) east-northeast of Waco. The group was suspected of weapons violations and a search and arrest warrant was obtained. The incident began when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) attempted to raid the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians. Upon the ATF's failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 men, women, and children,[8][9] including David Koresh, died. Controversy ensued over the origin of the fire; a government investigation concluded in 2000 that sect members themselves had started the fire at the time of the attack. Timothy McVeigh cited the Waco incident as a primary motivation for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The only problem with this scenario is that Timothy McVeigh was no bomber. The Murrah building was supposed to be a complete collapse, but some of the charges on the columns did not go off. They called in the bomb squad to defuse them. BTW, BATF had munitions stored in the sub-basement and they went off in a sympathetic explosion. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Janet Reno was a scumbag. And, Sonny bono did not have skiing "accident". He was murdered just for doing things like he did with Janet Reno putting her on the hot seat. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
#2. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#0)
The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
#3. To: Lod (#2)
The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.
#4. To: Shoonra (#1)
A month ago we didn't even know that either side has chemical weapons. Now we seem to know exactly where they are and how many thousands of soldiers WE will need to take them away. In the meantime, other countries (and some experts here) are not convinced about which side has the chem weapons.
#5. To: Shoonra (#1)
(Edited)
Simple fact, chem weapons, unlike nukes, are not so difficult to make. We could seize all that exist in Syria right now and both sides could manufacture an equal number within a short time.
Britain Russia is another and Syria is not a signatory of the chemical weapons ban. Maybe pressuring Syria to turn over its chem weapons and sign onto the ban is largely what this is about.
#6. To: GreyLmist (#5)
Syria is not a signatory of the chemical weapons ban. Maybe pressuring Syria to turn over its chem weapons and sign onto the ban is largely what this is about.
#7. To: GreyLmist (#0)
“The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,”
#8. To: All (#5)
the chemical weapons ban
The Washington Naval Treaty, signed February 6, 1922, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, aimed at banning CW—but did not succeed because the French rejected it. The subsequent failure to include CW has contributed to the resultant increase in stockpiles.[2]
If followed up by strong rules, his order could go a long way toward protecting millions of Americans who live near chemical plants from disasters like the explosion at a Texas fertilizer plant in April that killed 15 people.
#9. To: BTP Holdings (#7)
It would be a fatal error on Obama's part to do so. ;)
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#10. To: GreyLmist (#8)
"...While the treaty prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons..."
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#11. To: BTP Holdings, Lod, Shoonra, 4 (#7)
(Edited)
The fact that they are mulling over how many troops will be needed to "secure the chemical weapons" is not a good sign. If the U.S. commits these troops to Syria, it could unleash an insurgency far worse than that which emerged in Iraq. It would be a fatal error on Obama's part to do so. ;)
#12. To: James Deffenbach (#10)
Why isn't Bill Clinton in prison for ordering the massacre of the Branch Davidians in 1993 where CS gas was used? It is illegal to use it against enemies in war and yet he paid no price whatsoever after that was done to Americans.
#13. To: GreyLmist, JD, BTP, 4 (#11)
#14. To: James Deffenbach, All (#12)
#15. To: Lod (#13)
Whatever non-Syrians go in there, they will be targets.
Sign the petition
#16. To: GreyLmist (#14)
(Edited)
#17. To: Lod (#16)
Sonny was whacked for his pursuit of those murders and the narco-crimes going on.
#18. To: GreyLmist (#12)
Good question. Janet Reno should have gone to prison for that too.
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#19. To: GreyLmist (#14)
6 minute video: Sonny Bono grills Janet Reno over Waco
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
#20. To: James Deffenbach (#18)
Janet Reno should have gone to prison for that too.
#21. To: James Deffenbach (#9)
Yeah, but the problem with that is that it wouldn't be fatal TO Obama. He has lots of armed goons protecting him while telling the rest of us "Guns make us less safe." And yet, when people signed a petition to make the White House a gun free zone Obama didn't approve of that.
#22. To: GreyLmist (#20)
From the link at Wikipedia:
#23. To: GreyLmist (#14)
6 minute video: Sonny Bono grills Janet Reno over Waco
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest