U.S. congressional hurdles lifted on arming Syrian rebels

[FuzzyLumpkins]

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama should be able to go ahead with a plan to arm the Syrian rebels after some congressional concerns were eased, the chairman of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee said on Monday.

"We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward," Representative Mike Rogers, a Republican, told Reuters.

Both Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees had expressed worries about whether the administration's plan would succeed, delaying weapons deliveries to the Syrian opposition.

The White House announced in June that it would offer military aid to vetted groups of Syrian rebels after two years of balking at directly sending arms to the opposition in the civil war.

But lawmakers held up the project, complaining that the plan might not tip the balance in Syria in favor of forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad, and that weapons could end up in the hands of Islamist militants.

Last week, a senior administration official said that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had questioned the wisdom of arming the insurgents had tentatively agreed that the administration could go ahead with its plans, but sought updates as the covert effort proceeded.

Now, the House has given at least a cautious go-ahead.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8

[TeyshaBlue]

lofuckingl @ "vetted groups"

[symple19]

lofuckingl @ "vetted groups"

This x's a billion

I'd also like to see specifics on what types of systems will be delivered

There's already a lot of evidence showing the FSA is working with extremist groups, and who can blame them? With the shift in momentum (back to Assad), they'll take any help they can get.

To think some of those weapons won't end up in the wrong hands is batshit crazy. Seems to me that the Obama administration has basically decided that the inevitability of US weapons finding their way into the hands of groups like the Nusra front is worth the risk if they can take down Assad. I just fucking wish they would come out and tell it like it is every once in awhile.

And I still don't get why they feel the need to do this publicly. Funnel $$ into proxies and let them do the dirty work (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar e.g.) If they think this is going to make a damn bit of difference to the Arab Street, then it's obvious that our government has learned zip over the last 30+ years. Do they not realize that this will be viewed with deep contempt by the overwhelming majority of Shia?! Especially in Iraq, which is absolutely vital to our long term interests?

The best thing to do here would be to do as little as possible. In a long term scenario, imo, a Sunni dominated Syria will further isolate Iran, push Iraq closer to Iran (because guess where all the militants are going to go when the conflict in Syria ends), make Hezbollah far more volatile and desperate, further destabilize Gaza and the West Bank, and embolden Sunni hardline elements within Egypt (especially in the Sinai).

They're going to regret this, in more ways than one

[Jacob1983]

How long until this backfires?