Syrian rebels gather in Homs province in this 2012 file photo. (AP Photo, File)
(CNSNews.com) – At a time when some U.S. lawmakers charge that
Pentagon top brass are overly reticent about U.S. military options in
Syria, the mood in the European Union appears to be swinging against
intervention, with less talk about arming rebels and more concern over
potential jihadist blowback in Europe.
Three months ago, Britain and France led a successful effort to allow
an E.U. arms embargo on Syria to expire, making it possible for any
member-state that wished to do so to begin sending weapons to the
anti-Assad opposition with effect from August 1.
But that date came and went last week with no movement in that
direction – indeed British Prime Minister David Cameron earlier admitted
in a BBC interview that his government had decided not to supply
weapons, conceding that the regime’s military position has strengthened
in recent months and acknowledging that the rebel ranks included “a lot
of bad guys.”
Cameron’s apparent reversal came after lawmakers, including many in
his Conservative Party, passed a debate motion by 114 votes to one
stating that “this House believes no lethal support should be provided
to anti-government forces in Syria without the explicit prior consent of
parliament.”
Rather than announcements on arming rebels, a different Syria-related
concern arose Aug. 1 on the European political agenda. Nine E.U.
member-states, including Britain and France, jointly appealed to E.U.
lawmakers to support a procedure that would allow authorities to collect
information on airline passengers, pointing to the Syrian conflict as
the reason.
A statement from the interior ministers of France and Belgium, who
coordinated the joint appeal, referred to “the worrying phenomenon of
E.U. citizens traveling to Syria to participate in combat, often
alongside terrorist organizations.”
If the E.U. instituted that proposed airline “passenger name record”
(PNR) system, it said, relevant authorities would be able to track
their movement, to prevent those who “might be tempted to risk their
lives by going to the area of conflict but also, if necessary, to
prevent the commission of terrorist attacks on European soil.”
Citing privacy concerns, E.U. lawmakers last April rejected the PNR
proposal, which would require airlines to submit data on airline
passengers, including contact details and billing information.
A parliamentary committee is now reconsidering the text, and the nine
governments urged it to view it favorably, calling the PNR “one of the
most effective tools to monitor these people, both when they go to
Syria or other areas of conflict, but also when they return to their
country.”
A security think tank reported last April that hundreds of European Muslims have
traveled to Syria to fight with rebel groups
and that some could pose a security threat when they return home. Among
the rebels are radical jihadist organizations including al-Qaeda
affiliates.
The International Centre for the Study of Radicalization report said
as many as 600 Europeans had gone to Syria, with Britain, France,
Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands among the countries of origin.
Citing Syria-linked radicalization and associated potential terror
threat, the Dutch government’s National Coordinator for Security and
Counterterrorism (NCTV) last March raised the country’s threat level
from “limited” to “substantial” – defined as meaning “there is a
realistic possibility that an attack will take place in the
Netherlands.”
“An important factor in the current threat assessment is the threat
posed by Dutch jihadists travelling to Syria and then returning to the
Netherlands,” the NCTV said in a update last month. “Although not
everyone returning from a jihadist conflict zone poses a threat, these
people are not only bringing back radical ideas; they are also
traumatized and fully prepared to use violence.”
On Monday the NCTV confirmed that the “substantial” threat level assessment remains in place.
‘Disingenuous and exaggerated’
Meanwhile in the U.S., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army
Gen. Martin Dempsey continues to take flak over his recent evaluation of
potential military options for intervention in Syria.
In response to questions from Senate Armed Services Committee
Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and committee member Sen. John McCain
(R-Ariz.), Dempsey in a letter last month
outlined five possible options
– train and advise the opposition; conduct limited air and missile
strikes against military targets; enforce a no-fly zone over Syria; set
up buffer zones, probably adjacent to the borders with Turkey and
Jordan; and act to destroy or seize control of the regime’s chemical
weapons stockpiles.
Cost estimates for those measures ranged from an initial $500 million
a year for training and advising rebels, to $1 billion or more a month
for the other options, said the letter, which also warned of numerous
risks, including the empowering of extremists.
McCain has been outspoken in his support for intervention in Syria,
and after the Senate last Friday voted to confirm Dempsey for a second
term he issued a hard-hitting
statement explaining why he voted against approving the nomination.
“In my many years, I have seen a lot of military commanders overstate
what is needed to conduct military action for one reason or another,”
McCain said. “But, regarding Syria, rarely have I seen an effort as
disingenuous and exaggerated as what General Dempsey has proposed.”
He took issue in particular with Dempsey’s assessment regarding
stand-off strikes against regime targets. Dempsey said that option would
require hundreds of aircraft, ships and support assets, incur costs
that – depending on duration – “would be in the billions,” and carried
risks including possible retaliatory attacks and probable “collateral
damage” to Syrian civilians.
McCain asserted that “what General Dempsey described would be needed
to conduct ‘limited stand-off strikes’ is completely disingenuous as to
both the problem and the solution.”
Fresh implied criticism came on Monday from Rep. Eliot Engel
(D-N.Y.), ranking member on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, who
released a
letter he sent to Dempsey questioning his assessment of the limited strike option and requesting additional information.
“While I do not profess to be a military expert, it is clear that
this analysis does not fully reflect an even more limited option that
some have advocated, which would involve cruise missile or other
stand-off weapon strikes on regime-controlled air bases,” Engel wrote.
A
YouGov poll
in June found 48 percent opposition among Americans to U.S. air strikes
in Syria, compared to 19 percent in favor. The polls also recorded 53
percent opposed to arming Syrian rebels, compared to 19 percent in
favor.
A
Pew poll
around the same time found that opposition to arming Syrian rebels has
grown: 70 percent of respondents said they were against the idea, up
from 63 percent in March 2012, while the proportion of those in favor
stood at 20 percent, down from 29 percent in March last year.
