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/2013/09/19/world/middleeast/gates-and-panetta-critical-of-obama-on-syria.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Gates and Panetta Critical of Obama on Syria Gates and Panetta Critical of Obama on Syria
(about 1 hour later)
President Obama’s first two defense secretaries criticized the administration’s handling of the Syrian crisis on Tuesday night, saying they would not have asked Congress to authorize the use of force and would have accelerated the shipment of weapons to Syrian rebels. President Obama’s first two defense secretaries criticized the administration’s handling of the Syrian crisis on Tuesday night and expressed skepticism about the chances that Russia will broker a deal to remove Syria’s chemical weapons.
While the two former Pentagon chiefs, Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta, shared skepticism over the chances of Russia’s brokering a deal to effectively neuter Syria’s chemical weapons, they disagreed over whether focused, limited military strikes would have a strategic effect. Both former Pentagon chiefs, Robert M. Gates and Leon E. Panetta, said they would not have asked Congress to authorize the use of force. Mr. Gates said Mr. Obama’s proposal for a military strike against Syria in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons was a mistake, while Mr. Panetta said it was a mistake not to carry out an attack.
“My bottom line is that I believe that to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple days, to underscore or validate a point or a principle, is not a strategy,” Mr. Gates said during a forum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “If we launch a military attack, in the eyes of a lot of people we become the villain instead of Assad,” a reference to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. “My bottom line is that I believe that to blow a bunch of stuff up over a couple days, to underscore or validate a point or a principle, is not a strategy,” Mr. Gates said during a forum at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “If we launch a military attack, in the eyes of a lot of people we become the villain instead of Assad,” he added, a reference to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Mr. Gates, the only cabinet member from the George W. Bush administration whom Mr. Obama asked to stay on, said missile strikes on Syria “would be throwing gasoline on a very complex fire in the Middle East.”Mr. Gates, the only cabinet member from the George W. Bush administration whom Mr. Obama asked to stay on, said missile strikes on Syria “would be throwing gasoline on a very complex fire in the Middle East.”
“Haven’t Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya taught us something about the unintended consequences of military action once it’s launched?” Mr. Gates said.“Haven’t Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya taught us something about the unintended consequences of military action once it’s launched?” Mr. Gates said.
He advocated identifying credible partners within the Syrian opposition and increasing support, including weapons — but not surface-to-air missiles, which could be seized by militants for terrorist acts against civilian planes. Mr. Panetta, also speaking at the forum, said the president should have kept his word after he had pledged action if Syria used chemical weapons.
He also supported a strategy of sanctions that labeled members of the Assad government war criminals — with the threat of arrest if they left Syria — and suggested sanctions on Assad family members living or studying overseas, including their financial holdings. Such pressure might prompt some in the inner circle to negotiate an end to the civil war, Mr. Gates said.
Mr. Panetta, who also spoke at the forum, said the president should have kept his word after he pledged action should Syria use chemical weapons. Civilian deaths from a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 outside Damascus, the Syrian capital, have now been confirmed by the United Nations.
“When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word,” Mr. Panetta said.“When the president of the United States draws a red line, the credibility of this country is dependent on him backing up his word,” Mr. Panetta said.
“Once the president came to that conclusion, then he should have directed limited action,” to make it clear to the world that when the United States draws a line, “we back it up,” Mr. Panetta said. “Once the president came to that conclusion, then he should have directed limited action, going after Assad, to make very clear to the world that when we draw a line and we give our word,” then “we back it up,” Mr. Panetta said.
Mr. Gates expressed doubts that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was sincere in his efforts to negotiate the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, just as he was skeptical that the Assad government would disarm. For example, he said, Syria does not need days or weeks to identify the location and size of its chemical weapons arsenal. He suggested that the timetable be 48 hours. Mr. Gates and Mr. Panetta made their most extensive comments on current national security policy — and certainly their most critical statements on policies of the administration they both served — since leaving public service. Asked about the comments at a news conference Wednesday, the current defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, said he had “the greatest respect” for his two predecessors, but added, “Obviously, I don’t agree with their perspectives.”
Another former high-ranking Obama administration official, Michael J. Morell, who recently retired as the deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, also expressed skepticism about the negotiations brokered by Russia.
“I think this is the Syrians playing for time,” Mr. Morell told Foreign Policy magazine in an interview published on its Web site Tuesday. “I do not believe that they would seriously consider giving up their chemical weapons.”
Mr. Gates said he doubted whether President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was sincere in his efforts to broker a deal, and said he was skeptical that the Syrian government would disarm. For example, he said it was absurd that Syria needed days or weeks to identify the location and size of its chemical weapons arsenal, and he suggested that the timetable should be an ultimatum of 48 hours.
When asked whether the West should trust Mr. Putin, Mr. Gates said, “Are you kidding me?”When asked whether the West should trust Mr. Putin, Mr. Gates said, “Are you kidding me?”
Although Mr. Gates said any unilateral military action against Syria would be a mistake, he also said it was unwise for the president to have sought Congressional authorization to use force because of the risk to presidential prestige if he was rebuffed. He advocated identifying credible partners within the Syrian opposition and increasing support, including weapons — but not surface-to-air missiles, which could be seized by militants for terrorist acts against civilian aviation.
If Congress voted no, “it would weaken him,” Mr. Gates said. “It would weaken our country. It would weaken us in the eyes of our allies as well as our adversaries around the world.” He also supported a strategy of sanctions that labeled members of the Assad government as war criminals, with the threat of arrest if they left Syria, and suggested sanctions on Assad family members living or studying overseas, including on their financial holdings. Such pressure might prompt some in the inner circle to negotiate an end to the civil war, Mr. Gates said.
The session was the most extensive series of comments on current national security policy by Mr. Gates and Mr. Panetta since they left public service, and certainly the most critical of policies of the administration they both served. Although Mr. Gates said that any unilateral military action against Syria would be a mistake, he also said it was unwise for the president to have sought Congressional authorization to use force, because of the risk to presidential prestige if he was rebuffed.
Under questioning from the moderator, David Gergen, who has been an adviser to four presidents and is now on the faculty at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, both former secretaries said American credibility on Syria was essential to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. If Congress voted no, “it would weaken him,” Mr. Gates said. “It would weaken our country. It would weaken us in the eyes of our allies, as well as our adversaries around the world.”
Under questioning from the moderator, David Gergen, who has been an adviser to four presidents and is now on the faculty at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, both former secretaries said that American credibility on Syria was essential to enduring efforts to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.
“Iran is paying very close attention to what we’re doing,” Mr. Panetta said. “There’s no question in my mind they’re looking at the situation, and what they are seeing right now is an element of weakness.”“Iran is paying very close attention to what we’re doing,” Mr. Panetta said. “There’s no question in my mind they’re looking at the situation, and what they are seeing right now is an element of weakness.”
Mr. Panetta said the president “has to retain the responsibility and the authority on this issue” and it was wrong to “subcontract” the decision to Congress. Mr. Panetta said that the president “has to retain the responsibility and the authority on this issue,” and that it was wrong to “subcontract” the decision to Congress.
“Mr. President, this Congress has a hard time agreeing as to what the time of day is,” Mr. Panetta said.“Mr. President, this Congress has a hard time agreeing as to what the time of day is,” Mr. Panetta said.

Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Lauren D’Avolio from Dallas.