(By Deutsche Welle) US senators continue to pressure the Obama administration to intervene directly in Syria’s increasingly Balkanized civil war. But all the military options at Washington’s disposal carry major risks.
For more than a year now, the United States has been walking a fine line in Syria’s civil war, offering rhetorical support and non-lethal aid to the anti-Assad rebels, while publicly distancing itself from any notion of deploying American military power to topple the regime in Damascus.
In the latest push to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict, the US and Russia have agreed to sponsor talks between the fragmented rebels and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Geneva, possibly as early as June.
But the key differences between the two Security Council members remain. The US continues to push for Assad to step down, while Russia considers his fate an internal Syrian issue. Peace talks have also been complicated by Moscow’s call for Iran, Washington’s main rival in the region, to participate in the negotiations.
In the US Congress, key senators are putting little stock in the push for peace and are calling for direct US intervention on the ground. The scenarios range from arming the rebels, to establishing no-fly and safe zones, to intervening with ground troops to secure the Assad regime’s chemical weapons stockpiles.
“We have an obligation and responsibility to think through the consequences of direct US military action in Syria,” US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.
“Military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy and uncertain military commitment,” Hagel said.