Top story: Even as Congress approves light arms shipments to Syria’s rebels, a fresh warning about “boots on the ground” comes as the White House appears to be changing its message.
- You can almost hear Washington collectively remember — “Oh, riiiight” — as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff reminds everyone that another military adventure in another Middle East country will cost — initially — thousands of troops and tens of billions of dollars. (Washington Wire)
- “BREAKING: Every military option in Syria sucks” (Foreign Policy)
- The problems are the money and manpower problems of Afghanistan and Iraq. Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Martin Dempsey, for instance, warns that thousands — a very vague “thousands” — would be required to control chemical weapons, protect neighboring allies and establish no fly zones. (The Guardian)
- And then there’s the money problem. Controlling Syria’s chemical stockpiles? That’ll cost you $1 billion a month. (Ernesto Londoño)
- Buffer zones to protect Turkey and Syria? That’s another billion dollars a month. (Bloomberg)
- A no-fly zone? Oh, you know that’s gonna cost a billion dollars a month. (Spencer Ackerman)
- And there’s still the billions for training, advising and assisting the opposition as well as conducting limited strikes. (DoD Buzz)
- Worse, as General Martin Dempsey writes in the report, “Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next.” (Council on Foreign Relations)
- “We could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.” (Kasie Hunt)
- This may help explain, as the New York Times notes, why the White House has begun to qualify its words on kicking Assad out of Syria: (emphasis ours) “While there are shifts in momentum on the battlefield, Bashar al-Assad, in our view, will never rule all of Syria again.” (The New York Times)
