WASHINGTON — Shocking as it was, the massacre of more than 100 Syrian villagers is unlikely to galvanize a military assault like last year’s campaign in Libya to oust Moammar Khadafy. The killings, however, did provoke the strongest international condemnation the United States and other nations could muster.
The U.S. joined more than a dozen nations in expelling Syrian diplomats Tuesday, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pushed for further, direct action to dislodge Syrian President Bashar Assad. But President Barack Obama’s spokesman emphasized more limited options.
“We do not believe that militarization, further militarization of the situation in Syria at this point is the right course of action,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney. “We believe that it would lead to greater chaos, greater carnage.”
The nation’s top military officer, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, had appeared to hint at a possible shift in that long-standing U.S. position, saying Monday that despite reservations about military intervention, “it may come to a point with Syria,” because of the mounting atrocities.
But Pentagon spokesman George Little said Tuesday that those remarks did not mean the United States had backed off its position that military intervention risks doing more harm than good.
“But at the end of the day, we in the Department of Defense have a responsibility to look at the full spectrum of options and to make them available if they’re requested.”
Romney, who is opposing Obama in this year’s presidential election, said the massacre argued for strong action, including arming the rebels and pressuring Russia to stop selling arms to Assad forces.
“President Obama’s lack of leadership has resulted in a policy of paralysis that has watched Assad slaughter 10,000 individuals,” Romney said.
The administration’s position reflects deep doubt that any bombing campaign could be accomplished quickly and relatively bloodlessly, as in Libya.
