US to Provide Syria Rebels With Weapons
Decision follows conclusion regime used chemical agents
By Matt Cantor, Newser User
Posted Jun 14, 2013 2:23 AM CDT
Updated Jun 14, 2013 7:29 AM CDT
IIn this April 30, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama answers questions during a conference in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House.   (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File)

(Newser) – Now that the US has determined that Bashar al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons, the Obama administration intends to help arm Syrian rebels, officials tell the New York Times. The US will send light arms and ammunition; antitank weapons are also a possibility. Rebel leaders have called for antiaircraft weapons, but Washington currently has no plans to send those, officials say. "The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has," a top national security official tells the Washington Post.

"Suffice it to say this is going to be different in both scope and scale," adds Benjamin Rhodes. President Obama won't, however, send ground troops, and he has "not made any decision" on strategies like a no-fly zone. The CIA will be in charge of delivery, with weapons likely flown to Turkey or Jordan then taken via rebel-controlled routes into Syria, the Post notes. The US remains in favor of political negotiation to end the violence, Rhodes says. But many in Washington fear that Assad now has a clear upper hand and the military aid is coming too late, the Times notes; some in the State Department are urging airstrikes against key Assad sites.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
US to Provide Syria Rebels With Weapons is...
2%
11%
7%
7%
25%
47%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 186 comments
rickydarlin
Jun 15, 2013 11:38 AM CDT
bring ALL of our troops home & let those people kill each other ,close our borders & send the mexicans & muslims home
reallybig
Jun 15, 2013 12:27 AM CDT
TRUTH BE TOLD ...... CRAZY isn't it? .. that not one lying left-wing news media reporter, asked Obama where his proof was .. (NOT ONE?) .. that Assad had used chemical weapons against his own people? -- (where's the proof?) At least when Colin Powell lied to the UN .. he presented charts, pictures, and graphs ... (Obama showed nothing). CRAZY ISN'T IT? ..... The Colin Powell testimony .. (as recorded in the UN transcript dated, February 05, 2003) .. (where he said) .. "My colleagues, every statement I make today, is backed by sources, solid sources. These are not asserted. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid evidence." .. "The US knows about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism." ----- (Does this lying story .. sound familiar?) (Colin Powell convinced President George W. Bush .. and the UN .. and the whole-wide world of his outrageous lies). CRAZY ISN"T IT? .... Not 'one' lying left-wing news media reporter asked ..where is, and what is, the proof you have? Nobody asks Obama to 'cite' his expert sources? .. like his birth certificate? .. school grades? .. proof is not needed? My opinion? .. trust Obama, after the IRS, the NSA, Benghazi, State, and Justice Department scandals? -- REALLY? My opinion? .. like an Uncle Tom .. he'll do anything for England and France .. and do nothing for America -- REALLY
PeterGriffin
Jun 14, 2013 11:16 PM CDT
Whatever happened to guns being the source of all evil? Obama can't do enough, and quickly enough, to strip American citizens of their weapons to make him and all his anti-gun nut allies happy all the while making up bogus excuses as to why this is a good thing, but then to turn around and give foreigners weapons, including no doubt actual for real assault weapons not the fake ones he complains about in America to radical Muslims anybody else here have a problem with this hypocrisy? Trying to deny weapons to Americans while handing them out like lollipops to Muslims is like give cans of gasoline to the arsonist while preventing the building owner a working fire house. Only in the mind of a nutjob and/or a criminal does this qualify as the smart choice to make.