US ready to arm Syrian opposition on 5 options

United States Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced on Monday at the US Senate that the US Army is ready to arm Syrian opposition on 5 options, which are likely to cost over $1 billion per month. Sending a letter to the head of US Senate's Armed Services Committee Carl Levin and Senator John McCain, General Dempsey provided the Senate with his assessment of the merits of US military action in Syria. Dempsey stressed the US aid to Syrian opposition forces is at this stage limited to help the delivery of the humanitarian aid, provide security aid to Syria's neighbouring countries and non-weapon aid to the opposition, reminding that Patriot batteries were deployed both in Turkey and Jordan to enable the countries to protect them against a possible missile attack along with an operational headquarter and additional capacities including F-16 planes provided to Jordan. Dempsey also estimated that more than $1billion per month would be spent on aiding the struggling Syrian opposition if the US became more involved in Syria. He added the risk that the US aid may fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum of the war, which the UN estimates to have killed nearly 93,000 people since 2011. General Dempsey also expressed the concerns over US weapons that may end up in the hands of militia affiliated to Al-Qaeda like al-Nusra Front, but the House Intelligence Committee announced that it is willing to accept the risks. Making skeptical public comments about Syria over two years regarding greater US military involvement, the top US military officer cautioned the senators that taking military action to stop the bloodshed in Syria was likely to result in "unintended consequences." "We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action," he said. "If the Syrian regime's institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control," added Dempsey. Referring to the costly and bloody US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, General Dempsey argued that US military involvement in the Syrian civil war, may lead to "deeper involvement that is hard to avoid." "We have learned from the past 10 years, however, that it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state," noted Dempsey. In June, US President Barack Obama announced he would provide light weaponry and ammunition to the Syrian opposition for the first time, after concluding that Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, a violation of the "red lines" in Syria that he previously stated. Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee questioning the wisdom of arming the Syrian insurgents earlier agreed that the US administration could move forward with its plans, seeking updates and details as the covert effort proceeded. "We got a consens us that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are inSyria consistent with committee reservations," House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers commented upon the easing of congressional concerns and hurdles on the US aid. Dempsey's five options for US military involvement in Syria and help to the Syrian opposition In his letter, General Dempsey specified the options of  US military action inSyria as "arming and training the Syrian rebels," "limited remote air strikes," "creating a no-fly zone," "creating buffer zones," and "controlling the chemical weapons." Demsey stated that arming and training the Syrian rebels, the first and the lowest-risk option, would cost "$500 million per year initially", require several thousand troops" carrying the risk of arming al-Qaida-aligned extremist forces amongst the rebels or "inadvertent association with war crimes due to vetting difficulties". Mounting limited remote air strikes is likely to require hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers, with costs reaching billions, to degrade Assad regime's capabilities and an increase in regime desertions". Dempsey warned that Assad's regime could withstand the strikes. General Dempsey further preferred the option of a no-fly zone, which requires hundreds of ground and sea-based aircraft, intelligence and electronic warfare support, and enablers for refueling and communications. Dempsey forewarned that "The options may also fail to reduce the violence or shift the momentum because the regime relies overwhelmingly on surface fires like mortars, artillery, and missiles." As Dempsey assessed, even a limited no-fly zone aiming to establish a "no-kill zone" would cost "over $1bn a month," due to the requirement of "thousands of US ground forces" to maintain it, even outside Syria. As for creating buffer zones, Dempsey noted that the zones would aim to protect specific geographical regions like Syria's border regions with Turkey and Jordan. Requiring protection from air, missile and land attacks, the zones might be used by the opposition to organize and train as well as enabling, as secure zones, the flow of humanitarian aid into Syria, added Dempsey. He said Patriot batteries were deployed both in Turkey and Jordan for easing part of the pressure on Turkey and Jordan. The control of Syria's chemical stocks might need "thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites", wrote Dempsey. Dempsey's assessment did not involve Pentagon's previo us estimate that taking control of the weapons would mean inserting around 70,000US troops, an inflated figure as believed by some in the US Congress. The Obama administration is internally divided about the wisdom of deeper involvement in the bloody Syrian civil war, balancing a desire to avoid another war in the Middle East with ending one of the world's worst humanitarian disasters. Dempsey, a veteran of multiple command groups in Iraq, further warned that all the options would only further the "narrow military objective" of oppressing Syria's Assad.