Parnes and Herb 12 (Amie Parnes and Jeremy Herb, white house correspondents at The Hill, 05/29/12, The Hill, Obama wil not arm Syran rebels; Romney sees a ‘lack of leadership’, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/229951-president-will-not-arm-syrian-rebels-romney-says-he-should)
But on Tuesday, the White House — seemingly aware of a war-weary American public — didn’t appear to want to engage militarily in the conflict. Instead, Carney said, the Obama administration would continue to give a peace plan by U.N.-Arab League envoy Kofi Annan support and “hope the pressure on Assad has an effect.” At the same time, Carney added, “We will continue to work with both the Security Council and the broader coalition of friends of Syria to place pressure on the Assad regime.” When it comes to arming the rebels, there are concerns in Congress in both parties about who the opposition is and whether al Qaeda is involved, although those concerns have dissipated somewhat as the violence has increased. “I didn’t hear an easy way forward,” said Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who spoke to reporters on a conference call Tuesday during a congressional trip to Egypt and Israel. “There’s concern still about arming the opposition, who nobody seems to know very well, even in the region.” The administration still has some diplomatic levers it can pull, including further sanctions against Syria to try to stanch its cash flow. On Tuesday, the United States expelled the top Syrian envoy to Washington as part of a coordinated effort by countries around the world. One of the biggest diplomatic obstacles that remains is Russia, which has backed the Assad regime but joined the U.N. Security Council in condemning Syria this weekend. Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that convincing Russia is key to finding an internationally backed solution. “Russia has its own set of interests to protect, and it’s worth talking to the Russians both about what they want in Syria and what they don’t want in Syria,” he said. On Tuesday, Carney reiterated that no options — including military action — are off the table. But, he added, “We believe very strongly that Assad has to go.” Carney’s comments come a day after Obama — who campaigned on the platform of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — spoke about the “light of a new day on the horizon.” “As commander in chief, I can tell you that sending our troops into harm’s way is the most wrenching decision that I have to make,” he said during remarks on Memorial Day. “I can promise you I will never do so unless it is absolutely necessary and that when we do, we must give our troops a clear mission and the full support of a grateful nation.” Observers say Obama will keep up the diplomatic approach as long as he is able. The administration “hates to see what’s happening in Syria, but the idea of another engagement is something they don’t want to contemplate,” said Cal Jillson, a professor of political science at Southern Methodist University. In the middle of its election-year battle with Romney, Team Obama is conscious of an American public that would like to see the administration focus on domestic issues, including the down economy. “The American public is very much pro-freedom, but after 10 years of war, the desire to help other people gain their freedom is a long, hard road,” Jillson said. “The country is tired of war, they know our pocketbook is thin, and the Obama administration playing the diplomatic game in Syria is the right way to go electorally.” But critics of Obama’s policies in Syria say that the calls for Assad to leave power aren’t going to be effective unless they are backed up with action, something the administration thus far has yet to provide. “Rhetoric alone isn’t going to change the Syrian regime,” said Michael Rubin, an analyst at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “The Obama administration will keep bumping up against the same decision on the use of military action.”
Ext – Romney Will Arm Syrian Rebels
Romney will arm Syrian rebels --- Obama will not.
Parnes and Herb 12 (Amie Parnes and Jeremy Herb, white house correspondents at The Hill, 05/29/12, The Hill, Obama wil not arm Syran rebels; Romney sees a ‘lack of leadership’, http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/229951-president-will-not-arm-syrian-rebels-romney-says-he-should)
President Obama and Mitt Romney on Tuesday offered clashing views over whether to arm insurgents in Syria after a weekend massacre left more than 100 people dead and drew international condemnation. Romney called for the United States and partner nations to “arm the opposition so they can defend themselves” against the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, but White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that would lead to more “chaos and carnage” and was “not the right course.”The deep divide highlighted the realpolitik approach in Syria favored by an Obama administration focused on convincing Syrian ally Russia to pressure Assad and concerned about where weapons intended for insurgents might end up. It also offered an opening of sorts for Romney — who clinched the Republican nomination on Tuesday night — to hammer Obama on foreign policy, which has been one of the president’s biggest strengths during his time in office. As violence in Syria has escalated, Romney has ramped up his attacks on Obama’s handling of the events.
Romney will arm the Syrian rebels.
Bolton 12 (Bolton, Alexander, writer for The Hill, 04/01/12, The Hill, Senior members of House Intelligence Committee oppose arming Syrian rebels, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/219399-senior-members-of-house-intelligence-committee-oppose-arming-syrian-rebels)
The top-ranking Republican and Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Sunday that they would not support arming rebels in Syria, signaling that Congress could oppose any such effort by the administration. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said it would be risky to arm the rebels, members of the Sunni Muslim population in Syria. “I think we both agree that’s probably a bad idea. Mainly because we just don’t know who they are,” Rogers said on CNN’s “State of the Union”when asked about the possibility of arming the rebels. The United Nations estimates more than 9,000 people have been killed in the uprising that has pitted Sunni Muslims against Syria’s ruling Alawite sect, a branch of Shia Islam, to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs. Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger (D-MD), the senior Democrat on the panel, suggested Syrian defense forces could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups in retaliation or the rebels could form allegiances with terrorists, such as al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim group, after winning power. “They have a cadre of weapons that are very dangerous. And we are concerned, just like we were in Libya that if they -- if these weapons of mass destruction, if the chemical or biological weapons get in the hands of -- of terrorists or other groups, that could be very detrimental to the Middle East. But also to -- to the national security of the United States,” he said. Rogers said he did not see the Assad regime losing control of the country anytime soon, in part because of support from outside powers. “We don't really see Assad's inner circle crumbling. Remember, they're having a lot of victory supported by external forces like Iran, like Russia,” he said. Rogers said there are other ways to help the rebels and highlighted working with the Arab League. “I think the Arab League is willing and ready to step up, to take more aggressive action against Assad in Syria. We should be a part of that in a support role that I think is much better for the United States in the long run,” he said. He said that strategy would be preferable to “sending in arms and hoping for the best.” Romney will Arm