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.
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,” he added,
referring to President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Mr. Gates, the only cabinet member from the administration of George W.
Bush 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.”
 | ||
| Robert Gates, left, and Leon Panetta, center |
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.
“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, 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 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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Mr. Panetta said that the president “has to retain the responsibility
and the authority on this issue,” a
nd 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.