The Obama administration is still considering intensifying humanitarian intervention in Syria, and the Pentagon still isn’t recommending any specific major course of action.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on Tuesday told the Senate Armed Services Committee that President Obama “hasn’t taken anything like this off the table,” but detailed challenges the US military would face if it attempted to establish a no-fly zone or a humanitarian corridor in Syria.
He characterized both types of missions as “substantial” new obligations for the US military.
One of the Pentagon’s foremost concerns with the no-fly zone is that it believes the Syrian Air Force isn’t carrying out the majority of Damascus’ attacks on civilians. Carter said that “most of the civilian casualties inflicted by Assad’s forces on the civilian population have been from artillery and obviously this wouldn’t do anything about artillery.”
He also noted that the majority of the Syrian Air Force’s attacks on civilians–including the vicious and indiscriminate barrel bombings of residential areas—are occurring in the Western part of the country, where US warplanes would have to grapple with Syrian anti-aircraft weaponry.
“Were we to fly there, we would need to deal with the Syrian Integrated Air Defense system, which is a substantial undertaking of it’s own,” Carter said.
The Defense Secretary also noted that a “humanitarian zone” would, by definition, require “boots on the ground”–a scenario President Obama is keen on avoiding, to the extent that he can (administration officials have admitted that US special forces operated inside of Syria before last year, when the US-led counter-Islamic State (ISIL) military campaign was launched).
“A zone thus created would be contested by ISIL and by al-Nusra, at a minimum, so it would have to be defended,” Carter said. “Again, it’s a substantial military undertaking,” he added, noting that it protection would require “a ground force with accompanying air forces.” The Pentagon chief noted that enforcement–“who’s in, who is kept out”–would necessitate intense US involvement.
“I just want to be clear that to keep it safe would require fighting,” he said.
The other witness before the committee, Joint Chief of Staff chair Gen. Joseph Dunford, had been asked by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) about the “limitations” of a strategy involving a no-fly zone, specifically referencing recent Russian military assistance to the Assad government.
“The challenges are political, legal, and a diversion of the resources that are currently fighting ISIL,” the newly-appointed top administration military adviser remarked. He made the comments just before Carter spelled out concerns about logistics that have factored into the administration’s own political calculus.
After the two men answered the questions on humanitarian intervention, Heinrich used the remainder of his time to ask committee chair, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), for his own thoughts on the remarks.
McCain, who had earlier in the hearing harangued Carter for the time the administration has taken to deliberate the no-fly zone issue, declined the opportunity to comment.
“It’s an issue that’s been on the table for three or four years that I know of,” McCain had told Carter, opening the question-and-answer period of the hearing. “We received information when Gen. Dempsey said it would cost $1 billion a day, or something incredible, but it’s not a new issue.”
In July 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Dunford’s predecessor, actually said the establishment of a no-fly zone in Syria would cost $500 million, and that it would cost $1 billion to maintain every month.
“Risks include the loss of US aircraft, which would require us to insert personnel recovery forces,” Dempsey said. “It may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires mortars, artillery, and missiles.”
