This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Panetta Says the Pentagon Backed Arming Syrian Rebels Senate Hearing Draws Out a Rift in U.S. Policy on Syria
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told Congress on Thursday that the Pentagon had supported a plan to arm Syrian rebels that was developed last year by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then serving as Secretary of State. WASHINGTON — In his first term, President Obama presided over an administration known for its lack of open dissension on critical foreign policy issues.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were asked by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, if they had supported the recommendation that weapons be provided to the Syrian resistance. But on Thursday, deep divisions over what to do about one of those issues — the rising violence in Syria — spilled into public view for the first time in a blunt exchange between Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and the leaders of the Pentagon.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta acknowledged that he and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, had supported a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. But it was ultimately vetoed by the White House, Mr. Panetta said, although it was developed by David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director at the time, and backed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the secretary of state.
“How many more have to die before you recommend military action?” Mr. McCain asked Mr. Panetta on Thursday, noting that an estimated 60,000 Syrians had been killed in the fighting.
And did the Pentagon, Mr. McCain continued, support the recommendation by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Petraeus “that we provide weapons to the resistance in Syria? Did you support that?”
“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.“We did,” Mr. Panetta said.
“You did support that” Mr. McCain asked again. “You did support that,” Mr. McCain said.
“We did,” General Dempsey added.“We did,” General Dempsey added.
The White House, however, was worried about the risks of getting more deeply involved in the crisis in Syria. And with President Obama in the midst of a re-election bid, the White House rebuffed the plan, rejecting the advice of most of the key members of Mr. Obama’s national security team. Neither Mr. Panetta nor General Dempsey explained why President Obama did not heed their recommendation. But senior American officials have said that the White House was worried about the risks of becoming more deeply involved in the Syria crisis, including the possibility that weapons could fall into the wrong hands. And with President Obama in the middle of a re-election bid, the White House rebuffed the plan.
The New York Times reported in its Sunday editions that as the fighting in Syria raged last summer, Mr. Petraeus developed the plan, which Mrs. Clinton supported and that called for vetting rebels and training fighters who would be supplied with weapons. With the exception of General Dempsey, the officials who favored arming the rebels have either left the administration or, as in Mr. Panetta’s case, are about to depart. Given that turnover, it is perhaps not surprising that the details of the debate — an illustration of the degree that foreign policy decisions have been centralized in the White House — are surfacing only now. The White House spokesman declined to comment on Thursday.
His proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States might work, during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad’s eventual removal. The plan that Mr. Petraeus developed, and which Mrs. Clinton supported, called for vetting rebels and training a cadre of fighters who would be supplied with weapons. The plan would have enlisted the help of a neighboring state.The proposal offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies for the United States during the conflict and if President Bashar al-Assad is removed.
Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited again after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.Some administration officials expected the issue to be revisited again after the election. But when Mr. Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Mrs. Clinton suffered a concussion, missing weeks of work, the issue was shelved.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta was said by some officials to have been sympathetic to the idea, which was presented to the White House last year, though a spokesman for Mr. Panetta declined to comment on his role when asked last week. Syria rebel leaders have long appealed for weapons. Mohammed al-Haj Ali, a Syrian major-general who defected to the opposition, said in telephone interview last year that he had raised the issue of arming the resistance in a September meeting in Amman, Jordan, with Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of the Central Command, which overseas operations in the Middle East.
General Dempsey made his comments during testimony with Mr. Panetta on the Sept. 11 attack on an American compound on Benghazi, Libya, which led to the deaths of J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, and three other Americans.  “He was very sympathetic to it, but his main concern was who would actually get hold of these weapons,” he said, referring to General Mattis.
Discussing steps to improve security at American compounds abroad, Mr. Panetta said that it would take two to three years to add the 35 new Marine security guard detachments that the United States plans to deploy to improve the security of American diplomatic compounds abroad. General Haj Ali said he promised that the rebels who were armed would take care not to lose control of the weapons and would return any that they did not use.
The Marines have guard units at 152 diplomatic compounds, but did not have one in Benghazi when the assault occurred. Mr. Panetta said that the role of the Marines detachments would be expanded beyond protecting classified information at the compounds. General Mattis “said he would meet the top administration officials within 48 hours and get back to me,” General Haj Ali said through an interpreter, adding that he still had had no response six weeks later.
“This could include expanded use of nonlethal weapons, and additional training and equipment, to support the Embassy Regional Security Officer’s response options when host nation security force capabilities are at risk of being overwhelmed,” Mr. Panetta said in his prepared remarks. The debate over arming the rebels is complex and turns on assessments on the military advantages they might gain, the political calculations on who might come to power in Syria, and the dangers that the arms might fall into the wrong hands.
Mr. Panetta said that the Pentagon was not able to respond more quickly to the Benghazi episode because it had not received an intelligence alert about animpending attack. Jeffrey White, a former senior analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency and a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that providing weapons would help the rebels in their fight against a better equipped government that has warplanes, armor and artillery and reduce rebel casualties.
“Without adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond,” Mr. Panetta told the committee in his prepared statement. Equally important, Mr. White said, it would also give the United States influence with some of the groups that would control Syria if Mr. Assad is ousted and diminish the influence of Islamic extremists.
When the attack began, the Pentagon had no forces that could be rapidly sent to Benghazi or to protect diplomatic outposts in Tunisia, Egypt or Algeria that might also have come under assault on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “The day after the regime falls, the groups that have the guns will dominate the political and military situation,” Mr. White said. “And if some of those groups owe that capability to us, that would be a good thing. It does not mean that we would control the situation, but it would give us a means of shaping it.”
The closest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan. There are no armed drones thought to be within range of Libya. There was no Marine expeditionary unit — a large seaborne force with its own helicopters — in the Mediterranean Sea. Taking a contrary view, Daniel C. Kurtzer, a former United States ambassador to Israel and Egypt, said the potential risks outweighed the gains. Even with thorough vetting, he said, it would be difficult to ensure that the weapons did not fall into the hands of unreliable groups or those hostile to the United States.
The Africa Command, whose area of operation includes North Africa, also did not have on hand a force able to respond rapidly to emergencies — a Commanders’ In-Extremis Force, or C.I.F., as it is known. Every other regional command had one at the time, but the Africa Command shared one with the European Command, and it was on an exercise in Croatia at the time.  “The problem that I think the White House has identified much more clearly than the national security team is, ‘Who are you going to deal with?’ ” Mr. Kurtzer said.
In his prepared remarks, Mr. Panetta did not address the question of whether the Africa Command had requested any of these forces to be on hand on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nor did he say whether Mr. Panetta or General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given any thought to moving forces to the region as a precaution before the attacks in September last year. Much of the lengthy hearing was devoted to sparring over the Pentagon’s response to the Sept. 11 attack on the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The Pentagon chiefs said the military was not able to respond faster because there was no intelligence of an imminent attack. Mr. McCain faulted the Pentagon for not positioning forces in the region before the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks so that they could more quickly respond.
Senator McCain criticized the Pentagon for not positioning more forces in the region before the anniversary of Sept. 11 so they could more rapidly respond. But the statements by the Pentagon chiefs on Syria were so striking that Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, returned to them after a break in the proceedings.
“We could have placed forces there,” he said. “We could have had aircraft and other capabilities as short distance away as Souda Bay, Crete.” “Both of you agreed with Petraeus and Clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in Syria, is that correct?” Senator Graham asked.
“That was our position.” Mr. Panetta said. “ I do want to say, Senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were involved here that ultimately led to the president’s decision to make it nonlethal.
“And I supported his decision in the end,” Mr. Panetta continued. “But my answer to your question is yes.”
 Mr. McCain said he was dismayed that Mr. Obama had “overruled the senior leaders of his own national security team, who were in unanimous agreement that America needs to take greater action to change the military balance of power in Syria.”