Revealed: In 2012, The Pentagon Knew That It Would Take 75,000 GROUND TROOPS To Secure Syria’s Chemical Weapons Facilities

‘Employment of airstrikes alone to support French troops in the jungle would create a double jeopardy: it would comprise an act of war and would also entail the risk of having intervened and lost.’ 

– President Dwight Eisenhower on intervening in Vietnam on behalf of France

Reported last night by David Martosko in the Daily Mail:

Securing Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.

That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.

U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.

‘The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor’s staff,’ a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

‘DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn’t a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.’

The logistical difficulties of bringing Syria’s chemical warfare infrastructure under control stands in stark contrast with the text of a resolution passed Wednesday by a powerful Senate committee, and with assurances Secretary of State John Kerry has given committees in both houses of Congress.

No deniability: When Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (L) inherited the Pentagon's top job in February, his agency had known for a full year that resolving Syria's chemical weapons threat without ground troops was a practical impossibility

Hundreds of children were among the more than 1,400 killed by what U.S. officials have called a sarin nerve gas attack in the Duma neighborhood of Damascus on August 21

Kerry promised Wednesday that there would be 'no boots on the ground' in Syria, less than 24 hours after hedging his bets by allowing that securing chemical weapons sites could require more than just air strikes

U.S. Navy SEAL teams and other Special Forces units could be part of a rapid deployment, with a 'non combat' mission restricted to securing chemical weapons, but if they are attacked their rules of engagement would likely permit returning fire

The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it 'does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.'

If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – 'for the purpose of combat operations' – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.

Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that 'boots on the ground' could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles 'in the event Syria imploded, for instance.' 

Kerry also mused on a scenario in which 'there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us – the British, the French and others – to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements.'

'I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.'

- Secretary of State John Kerry, 3 September 2013

Holding their noses? Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez and ranking Republican Bob Corker co-authored a war powers resolution whose guarantee of no ground troops could be quickly discarded

These Syrian troops, shown in a February 2012 CNN broadcast, shout 'Allahu Akbar' as they raise their rifles skyward. U.S. forces entering the country would have to fight them for control of chemical weapons sites

What's waiting: In Syria's eastern town of Deir Ezzor on August 26, government forces were accused of opening fire on UN weapons inspectors on their way to a suspected chemical weapons site outside Damascus

But moments later he insisted 'the military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs ... is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan.

Less than a day later, Kerry sang the same refrain for members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

'There will be no boots on the ground,' Kerry said Wednesday.

'The president has said that again and again. And there is nothing in this authorization that should contemplate it. And, we reiterate, no boots on the ground.'

An August 20, 2013 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, whose research muscle is tapped routinely by members of Congress, described that troop estimate and attributed it to a 22 February 2012 CNN report. 

When that report aired, the network cited unnamed Pentagon officials who said securing the chemical warfare installations would be extraordinarily difficult,' and MIGHT REQUIRE MORE U.S. GROUND FORCES THAN WERE IN AFGHANISTAN AT THE TIME.

A British Parliamentary report published in July determined that there is 'no doubt amongst the UK intelligence community that the Syrian regime possesses vast stockpiles' of weaponised chemical agents. 

 

 

 

See also: