Romney Not Serious About Syria

He would do nothing different than Obama, despite the BG charade regarding arming the rebels:

"Romney’s stance on Syria a work in progress" by Michael Kranish  |  Globe Staff, June 19, 2012

WASHINGTON - Last November, Mitt Romney rejected calls for the United States to back a no-fly zone and havens to help rebels in Syria, saying that nation’s government “is not bombing its people, at this point, and the right course is not military.’’

Today, those words have put Romney in an awkward position on what has become one of the most divisive foreign policy issues in the presidential campaign.

He now says Syrians are facing a “military onslaught’’ from their government, calls on the United States to facilitate arming the rebels, and blasts what he calls President Obama’s failure to act. Yet Romney continues to oppose the creation of no-fly zones and rebel havens....  

We are already arming them. Just because the MSM says we are not doesn't make it true.

The Obama administration has called for Syrian leader Bashar Assad to leave and for a “managed transition’’ that would be designed to prevent civil war and to protect the interests of all Syrians. The administration has opposed Romney’s suggestion to arm the opposition, fearing that rebels are disunited and that weapons might fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or be used in a sectarian bloodbath.   

"CIA-Duh" is already getting them if not moving them in, and if you will excuse me I need to go to the crapper.  Happens every time I see "CIA-Duh."

The administration has agreed with Romney in rejecting suggestions for a no-fly zone, in part because Syria has more robust air defense capabilities than did Libya, where Obama supported no-fly zones.

A spokesman said the Obama campaign would not comment on Romney’s Syria policy. But Susan Rice, US ambassador to the United Nations, scoffed at Romney’s proposal in a recent appearance on MSNBC. “For those who are advocating arming the opposition, they really ought to consider the consequences of that approach. And also to ask frankly, who are they arming inside of the Syrian opposition?. . . There are some extremist elements mixed in there.’’

**********************************

Romney’s call to arm the opposition has raised questions about whether he would support sending US arms via a third country, and how he would ensure that the arms stay in the hands of those friendly to the United States.

Theodore Kattouf, who served as US ambassador to Syria during the George W. Bush administration, said the Obama administration is right to act cautiously, and he urged Romney to do the same.

“The law of unintended consequences seems to be almost constitutionally writ in the Middle East,’’ Kattouf said. If the rebels are victorious, “what do you do the day after? Who is going to ensure that the very opposition that has been butchered by . . . regime instruments will not turn around and do the same thing to minorities. We have seen this movie in Iraq, for God’s sakes. Sectarian feelings are running very high. Who is going to rebuild things? Where does the money come from?’’

Romney declined an interview request. One of his top foreign policy advisers, former assistant secretary of state Richard Williamson, confirmed in an interview that Romney wants to work closely with allies to help arm the opposition.

Williamson said Romney blames Obama for letting the situation in Syria grow into a full-blown crisis that could have repercussions across the region.

But Republicans are not united on what to do in Syria. Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has distanced himself from Romney’s proposal to arm the opposition. “We’re just not exactly sure who the bad guys are, who the good guys are, so you don’t know who you’re giving weapons to,’’ Rogers said recently on CNN.

Romney’s views also may diverge from those of John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the United Nations, who is considered among Romney’s most influential and hawkish advisers.

Related: The Future Romney Regime

I'd rather keep Obama then.

Bolton wrote an essay for the June 25 issue of the conservative National Review magazine in which he both called for action in Syria but laid out the dangers of arming an opposition group that might not prove trustworthy.

Without mentioning Romney’s call to arm the opposition, Bolton wrote: “In truth, we do not know enough about the opposition’s political or military leadership (which currently, at least, appears confused and divided) to predict who would prevail in the immediate aftermath of Assad’s overthrow. In such circumstances, the risk of a radical Islamist regime’s replacing Assad is considerably higher than it would have been if we had moved to oust him years ago.’’

Moreover, Bolton wrote, the situation has grown so bad that sending US military assistance now will not “advance legitimate American interests.’’ Still, he left open the possibility that weapons could go to “truly secular’’ members of the opposition.

Bolton could not be reached for comment and the Romney campaign declined to respond on the record to a question about whether Bolton’s view represented the candidate’s policy.

The fighting in Syria has become so intense that a United Nations observer mission pulled out of the country last weekend, underscoring the failure of a UN peace plan.

See: Hague Not Vague About Syria

Syrian rebels are believed to have received some arms from outside sources via Turkey but remain overmatched by Assad’s military.  

American media isn't serious about exposing what we know. 

Update: Armed groups in Syria receive weapons from Israel: Reports

Whatta shock.

Further complicating the situation, Russia announced Monday it was sending two ships to a Syrian port to protect Russian interests there. That follows a charge by the Obama administration that Russia has sent refurbished helicopter gunships to Syria....  

Russia's line in the Syrian sand.

Obama on Monday held talks about Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a conference in Mexico and said afterward that the two “agreed that we need to see a cessation of the violence, that a political process has to be created to prevent civil war,’’ but concrete steps to make that happen were not outlined.

--more--"

Related: Obama Meets Putin in Mexico

"Russia to send marines to Syria" by Vladimir Isachenkov  |  Associated Press, June 19, 2012

MOSCOW - Two Russian Navy ships are completing preparations to sail to Syria with a unit of marines on a mission to protect Russian citizens and the nation’s base there, a news report said Monday.

The deployment appears to reflect Moscow’s growing concern about Syrian President Bashar Assad’s future.

Interfax news agency quoted an unidentified Russian Navy official as saying that the two amphibious landing vessels, Nikolai Filchenkov and Caesar Kunikov, will be heading shortly to the Syrian port of Tartus, but didn’t give a precise date.

The official said the ships will carry an unspecified number of marines to protect Russians in Syria and evacuate some equipment from Tartus, if necessary.

Each ship is capable of carrying up to 300 marines and a dozen tanks, according to Russian media reports. That would make it the largest known Russian troop deployment to Syria, signaling that Moscow is becoming increasingly uneasy about Syria’s slide toward civil war....   

Or an EUSraeli attack.

The Russia news agency quoted a deputy Russian air force chief as saying that Russia will give the necessary protection to its citizens in Syria. Major General Vladimir Gradusov said the air force would act on orders if it is necessary to provide air support for the navy squadron. The Defense Ministry had no immediate comment, and an official at the Black Sea fleet declined to comment.

Asked if the Pentagon is concerned about the plan, officials in Washington said it depends on the mission. They had no comment on the stated goal of protecting Russian citizens and the Russian military position there, something the United States would do in a foreign country if in a similar situation.  

The Russians hollering hypocrites must have muted the criticism.

--more--"  

Also see: Hague Not Vague About Syria

Next Day Update: Arms-laden ship for Syria said to be heading back to Russia

That whole story is a lie. There was no such ship.  

BREAKING: "Private Security Companies" in Syria, Supporting Rebels: Foreign Mercenaries Detained