U.S. general: Syrian air defense may be problem

In a July 10, 2010 photo Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the Senate Armed Services Committee. / AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Updated 2:09 p.m.

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in the Middle East told senators Tuesday that the advanced air defense weapons Russia has provided to Syria's regime would make it difficult to establish a no-fly zone there as part of an effort to help the rebellion.

Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, declined to detail any military options the Pentagon has developed for action against the regime. But he told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it would take a significant military commitment to create even safe havens in Syria where aid could be delivered, as Sen. John McCain suggested Monday.

Senators repeatedly pressed for options to stem the brutal offensive against the Syrian people by President Bashar Assad's regime. And they questioned Iran's involvement there, as well as Tehran's ongoing efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

U.S. general: Syria has "substantial" bioweapons
Israel impatient, but still mulling Iran strike
Bombs could not stop Iran from getting nukes

McCain said he is growing angry over the argument that the U.S. and others want to figure out who the Syrian opposition is before providing greater aid to them. A lot of people will die before that happens, he said.

The Obama administration and other international leaders have opposed military intervention in Syria, and instead have pushed instead for increased sanctions.

Syria in crisis: Who are the key players?

President Barack Obama at a news conference Tuesday said that unilateral military action by the U.S. against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad would be a mistake. He said the situation in Syria is more complicated than it was in Libya.

Obama has resisted calls to get drawn into the turmoil in Syria to stop Assad's bloody crackdown on protesters. More than 7,500 people have been killed there.

Obama also said that the international community has not been able to muster a campaign against Syria like the one in Libya that ousted Moammar Gadhafi last year. Russia has blocked a U.N. Security Council resolution against Assad's regime.

Obama's strategy has been to use sanctions and international diplomatic isolation to pressure Assad into handing over power.

On Capitol Hill, Mattis acknowledged that Assad is gaining momentum on the battlefield and will use "heavier and heavier weapons" against his people. Conditions there will get worse before they get better, he said.

He added that if there was a decision to intervene in Syria, Iran would use surrogates to foment violence and back the regime, but would likely try to avoid overt military support.

According to Mattis, Syria has a "substantial" chemical and biological weapons capability and thousands of shoulder-launched missiles. Until now, the U.S. military has largely declined to describe the expanse of weapons that President Bashar Assad's regime has at its disposal.

The prospects of a civil war are rising in Syria, he said, but the "options available to address the situation are extremely challenging."

U.S. officials argue that unlike the military campaign in Libya last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi, a military campaign in Syria would be far more difficult, would not get the backing of the U.N. Security Council and would be hampered by a less coordinated opposition force. Russia and China have blocked efforts by the Security Council to punish Syria.

Senators also questioned whether sanctions against Iran are working. Mattis said that military action against Iran would only delay efforts there to develop nuclear weapons, and only the Iranian people can force real change there.

Mattis' comments come as the Obama administration meets with Israeli leaders this week to discuss the escalating Iranian threat and the possibility of a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

In other issues, Mattis warned against efforts to scale back the Navy's presence in the embattled region, saying threats from Iran and elsewhere will require more ships and maritime missile defense capabilities.

Against a backdrop of roughly $500 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over the next decade, Mattis said the U.S. must use its Navy and special operations forces to maintain a smaller but still strong military presence in the Middle East as the wars in Iran and Afghanistan end.

"The stacked Iranian threats ... of ballistic missiles, long-range rockets, mines, small boats, cruise missiles and submarines demand stronger naval presence and capability to protect vital sea lines of communication," Mattis said.

[Gideon539]

I seem to recall in 2007 the Israelis going all the way to North East Syria to bomb a Nuke Reactor/bomb plant without the Syrians knowing what happened until it was all over. I am guessing that if the US cant do it themselves, they can simply ask the Israelis to help defeat Russian radar, they do it all the time.
"IAEA: Syria site bombed by Israel 'was likely nuclear'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13530945

On the other hand it seems like Obama has ordered the weakest posture possible by the US in order to avoid doing anything to help free Syria. And so we leave it to the Saudis and Qatar to arm the opposition. Because that's worked out so well before...barf...

[beancube2010]

The Air Forces is not a problem, Assad is deliberately not using them because Russians would hate to see Russian made war planes are being used to shoot at unarmed civilians. Assad can drag on his resistance while he can announce the number of casualty of his soldiers. Syrians shouldn't fight soldiers, they should fight Assad's commanders instead. Actually, soldiers love to see if their commanders are able fighting anything themselves.

[AOCGUY]

Neg Mathis is not referring to the Syrian Air Force's aircraft. He is referring to a very robust and capable air defense system which includes Russin built radars, SAMs, and AAA, along with a modern C2 infrastructure.

[AOCGUY]

Gen not Neg

[1notrub11]

So let's see..... what are the differences between Syria and Libya with respect to intervention?

Unlikely to be oil, since Syria is not a very large producer - certainly not relative to Libya.

So last time, wasn't "war .. not a game"? How convenient - must be an election year.

[venusvegasvada]

Knocking out air defense is one of the things cruise missiles are for. What's the problem?

[w_roos]

Hey McCain -- you so psyched about fighting a war? Go ahead and go to Syria with your family and fight for the opposition. Just go right now. We'll keep your Senate seat waiting for when you come back.

[foo8259]

If you come back.

[ThomasSense]

My heart breaks for these people. We haven't been appreciated yet. Let's get out of it all.

[foo8259]

"Syria's chemical weapons stockpile is one of the largest in the world and if left unsecured there is concern it could fall into the hands of terrorist groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah organization."

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/06/syria-will-get-worse-before-it-gets-better/

[foo8259]

I forgot to add -- and where did this huge stockpile of WMD come from? Ill give you a hit -- the country they came from starts with an "I" and ends with a "q" because we gave them advance warning of our invasion. This gave em ample lead time to truck all their WMD to Syria -- that's why we never found any -- Duh?

[p_syrus]

What you left out is that the chemical weapons were provided to Iraq by your good buddies in the Bush I Administration.

[LtSmily]

I actually agree with President Obama, for once. The Russians will fight tooth and nail to keep Syria as it is because they need a Middle East hedge against a resurgent Turkey. Military is irrelevant, with true leadership and decision making, not the "shock and awe" bs from 2003, Syria and Iran would be glass bowls, and absolutely none of these (arab spring... what a joke) revolts are in America's best interest, so let them have at it. Pull out of the Middle East entirely, let it be known we will use overwhelming deadly force if any allies are attacked and then dare them to call our bluff. We should concentrate on America first, but if someone screws with our allies, media blackout, let the Military go do what it is designed to do and get the hell out.

[AOCGUY]

I'm thinking I agree with you.

[rockymountainskip]

America is worried about the humanitarian situation in Syria, oh yeah, give me a break.
People sure are forgetful. Here is a quote from Madeleine Albright (2001) on US sanctions that caused more than 500,000 deaths of Iraqi children:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

People wake up, the Humanitarian situation has nothing to do with America wanting to topple Assad.
America doesn't give a hoot about the people in Syria, not the Alawite minority( a branch of the Shiites) or the Sunni majority. Assad's Syria has a defense pact with Iran, the Sunnis do do support Iran. The Sunnis also do not support Lebanon's Hezbollah. Wake up, America has killed hundreds of thousands of people to bring change to the middle east, the humanitarian situation is only a guise for America's desire for regime change. Turn on your brain cells, arming the opposition will result in MORE DEATHS. China and Russia are not stupid, they know what the game is all about, the road through Damascus leads to Tehran.

[4july]

We've been at war with Iran?

Anyways, Mattis is correct. President Obama is playing this expertly by listening to his Generals. Bush didn't and neither did Hitler, and both times America had to clean up their mess.