You will be redirected to the page you want to view in  seconds.

Sending U.S. arms to Syria too little, too late, experts say

Jul. 16, 2013 - 04:31PM   |  
  • Filed Under

The decision by the U.S. to begin supplying arms directly to Syrian rebels is too little, too late to tip the balance in the Syrian conflict, two top Middle East experts said Tuesday.

The military balance has tilted so far against the rebels in recent months that American shipments of arms to selected groups is not an effective solution, said Nabeel Khoury, senior fellow for Middle East and national security at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

If the U.S. wants to make a difference in the Syrian conflict — and end it more quickly — it needs a more direct, aggressive approach, Khoury told the Middle East Policy Council.

“If we had [supplied weaponry] two years ago, yes, it would have made a difference,” he said. “But now it’s not enough.”

U.S. deliveries so far include light weapons and anti-tank missiles. While the supplies are intended to aid militants, the Obama administration faces a daunting task of ensuring that the arms do not fall into the hands of extremists.

Mona Yacoubian, senior adviser on the Middle East at the Stimson Center, a national security think tank, said U.S. military intervention in a targeted way could still be effective, but arming the rebels is not. In fact, she said, it is the worst possible option for the Syrian people.

“We have to be a little more humble about our ability to influence [Syria] given our very little presence there,” Yacoubian said. “I think we need to be cautious at a minimum on the question of arming and the way that can impact a zone in conflict.”

Khoury said U.S. weapons being sent now would simply be matched by the other side. The weapons the Syrian regime already has, those coming from Iran and Russia, and the physical presence of Hezbollah fighters would offset any weapons the U.S. sends, according to Khoury.

“If they are quality weapons, anti-tank and anti-aircraft, it would make them more able to withstand attacks against them,” Khoury said. “But it would not be enough for them to win.”

According to Khoury, the United States lost the ability to affect the situation after the first year of the conflict. Providing the troops and equipment needed to have an impact now would be costly and risky. Nevertheless, he said, the U.S. needs to degrade Hezbollah’s forces and the ability of the regime to continue killing on a mass level.

“The logical thing is that we need to have an impact on how that war ends up,” he said. “So if weapons isn’t the name of the game, give me something else that is the name of the game and do it.”

Answers by RallyPoint

Join trending discussions in the military's #1 professional community. See what members like yourself have to say from across the DoD.

More In News

Start your day with a roundup of top defense news.

VA Home Loan

Search By:

Product Options:
Zip Code:

News for your in-box

Sign up now for free Military Times E-Reports. Choose from Money and Education. Subscribers: log in for premium e-newsletters.

This Week's Navy Times

This Week's Navy Times

Go mustang
LDO and warrant careers offer more authority, a pay hike and big retirement payout

Subscribe for Print or Digital delivery today!

MilitaryTimes Green Trusted Classifieds Looking to buy, sell and connect on Military Times?
Browse expanded listings across hundreds of military installations.
Faces of valorHonoring those who fought and died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
hall of valorThe Hall of Valor is a searchable database of valor award citations collected by Doug Sterner, a Vietnam veteran and Military Times contributing editor, and by Military Times staff.

All you need to know about your military benefits.

Benefits handbook

Guard & Reserve All you need to know about the Guard & Reserve.

guard and reserve handbook