|
AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk'
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The intelligence linking Syrian President
Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack
that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions
remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons
stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S.
intelligence officials say.
President Barack
Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was
responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military
strike.
"We have concluded that the Syrian
government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with
"NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be
international consequences."
However, multiple
U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the
intelligence picture - a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's
insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction was a "slam dunk" - intelligence that turned out to be
wrong.
A report by the Office of the Director
for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick
with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely
responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture.
Relevant congressional committees were to be briefed on that evidence by
teleconference call on Thursday, U.S. officials and congressional aides
said.
The complicated intelligence picture
raises questions about the White House's full-steam-ahead approach to
the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that
the attack could be tied to al-Qaida-backed rebels later. Administration
officials said Wednesday that neither the U.N. Security Council, which
is deciding whether to weigh in, or allies' concerns would affect their
plans.
Intelligence officials say they could
not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad's supplies of chemical
weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as U.S. rhetoric
builds. That lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise
missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could
hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a
deadly chemical attack.
Over the past six
months, with shifting front lines in the 2 1/2-year-old civil war and
sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and
allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's
chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence
official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence
shared by the White House as reason to strike Syria's military complex.
All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
discuss the Syrian issue publicly.
U.S.
satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into
weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not
been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was
relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like
Assad's forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to
remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been
stored.
In addition, an intercept of Syrian
military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with
no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a
senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So
while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the
attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence
officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was
carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried
out by government forces, the officials said.
Ideally,
the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to
Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a
rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without
Assad's authorization. Another possibility that officials would hope to
rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and
were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the
West into the war.
The U.S. has devoted only a
few hundred operatives, between intelligence officers and soldiers, to
the Syrian mission, with CIA and Pentagon resources already stretched by
the counterterrorism missions in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, as
well as the continuing missions in Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials
said.
The quest for added intelligence to
bolster the White House's case for a strike against Assad's military
infrastructure was the issue that delayed the release of the U.S.
intelligence community's report, which had been expected Tuesday.
The uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden.
"We
know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical
weapons," Kerry said. "We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity
to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to
clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took
place."
On Wednesday, State Department
spokeswoman Marie Harf said it didn't really matter whether the
administration knew those details with total certainty.
"We
ultimately, of course, hold President Assad responsible for the use of
chemical weapons by his regime against his own people, regardless of
where the command and control lies," Harf said.
The
CIA, the Pentagon and the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence declined to comment, and the White House did not respond to
requests for comment.
Still, many U.S.
lawmakers believe there is reasonable certainty Assad's government was
responsible and are pressing the White House to go ahead with an armed
response.
"Based on available intelligence,
there can be no doubt the Assad regime is responsible for using chemical
weapons on the Syrian people," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia,
the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Short of
putting troops on the ground, I believe a meaningful military response
is appropriate."
Others, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed serious concern with the expected military strike.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday that all the evidence points in one direction.
"There
is no evidence that any opposition group in Syria has the capability
let alone the desire to launch such a large-scale chemical attack,"
Hague told British broadcaster Sky News.
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has recalled Parliament to debate the issue Thursday.
---
Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper, Julie Pace and Lara Jakes contributed to this report.
---
Follow Dozier on Twitter: http://twitter.com/kimberlydozier
and Apuzzo at http://twitter.com/mattapuzzo
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment