U.S. scrambling for options on Syria

The ongoing deadly assault against Syria's rebels intensified sharply this month after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on the dictator Bashar al-Assad to step down. Since then, the U.S. has been searching for another way to end the massacre.

CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on her way to an international conference on Syria, but no one expects that meeting will end the bloodshed. Instead, the best hope is that the 70 countries that make up the "Friends of Syria" group can agree on a plan to bolster opposition forces.

The Obama Administration up until now has firmly rejected calls to arm the Syrian opposition, but White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday opened the door to the possibility.

"I want to be clear that our position is that it is not appropriate now to contribute to the militarization, the further militarization of Syria. We don't rule out additional measures if the international community waits too long and doesn't act decisively," Carney said.

Just last year, the U.S. led a NATO intervention in Libya. When we asked why that action is not a model for Syria, Carney said US policy is not "one size fits all."

"In Libya, as you recall, there was support at the international level, broad support in the United Nations Security Council resolution. There was a request from the Libyan opposition and the Libyan people for direct military intervention," Carney said.

At the top of the agenda for the "Friends of Syria" meeting is establishing a cease-fire in the country so they can deliver badly needed humanitarian aid. They will also discuss safe havens for civilians, and try and organize the fractured Syrian opposition forces.

Journalists a "target" in Syria, reporter says
Syria violence intensifies amid journalist deaths
Syria blogger reportedly killed in shelling
U.S. softens stance on arms for Syria rebels

[karek40]

We need to stay out of another nations civil war. We have neither the money or the troops to spare policing another nations war. On this issue Ron Paul is right.

[joesapper]

well the cbs news said it , perhaps the cbs will start to have computer clitch like i am having including another poster that brought it to the attention of us in another artical on this blog,

the heading of this story reads US, scrambling , well since obama is the voice of authority of the usa , than i would say from reading the heading that obama is scrambling, but viewing the past of this admin inregards to iran , syria , russia , and egypt i would say that the option of doing nothing other than talking will be the standard.

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

by venusvegasvada February 22, 2012 11:16 PM EST
Thanks China and Russia.

You want to talk the talk but don't want to walk the walk.
---
Like we do?

Look at all the resolutions condemning Israel's actions that the US has vetoed.

No dif......

[Burgerbasket]

Nice job China and Russia. You guys are just as guilty of murder as the Syrian Government is. Probably more.

[sofarfrome]

How about the "Let's Keep Out Nose Out Of It" option?

[venusvegasvada]

Thanks China and Russia.

You want to talk the talk but don't want to walk the walk.

[cbs_tom]

As much as I miss the Cold War (less problems with the smaller countries at the time), and with the way Lybia and Egypt have gone, I vote we opt out on this one!

[paul2313]

This has echo's of "business as usual" from the Cold War. Russia and China arming one side and the US and others arming the other side while sitting back, using Peace Talks (so called) as a delay tactic for a big offensive to take the other side out.

If I recall, its Russia/China 2, US/Allies Null.