Talk Of Strike On Syria Moves From 'Will It Happen?' To When
With U.S. officials saying there's little doubt that President Bashar Assad's regime used chemical weapons on the Syrian people last week, and with U.S. Navy ships moving toward that country's coast, it now seems to be a question of "when" not "whether" America will strike military targets inside that nation.
What would be the goal of a strike in coming days — most likely cruise missiles fired at "command and control" centers of the Syrian military?
"I suspect it will not be an effort to fundamentally change the battlefield balance," Miller told Morning Edition host Renee Montagne. "In effect, it will try to be a strike that looks to alter Assad's behavior, not the regime itself."
One reason the U.S. and its allies might not try to topple Assad with any missile strikes is that the forces fighting his regime include militant Islamists who swear allegiance to terrorist groups such as al-Qaida.
Also on Morning Edition, NPR's Larry Abramson reported from Indonesia, where he and other reporters are traveling with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. President Obama, Larry said, is now weighing the intelligence about last week's attack in Syria and the issue appears to be "how to respond, not whether to respond."
As you might expect, the situation is dominating news outlets' headlines today:
-- "Confident Syria Used Chemicals, U.S. Mulls Action." (The New York Times)
-- "U.S. Talks Tough On Syria, Ramps Up Attack Planning." (The Wall Street Journal)
-- "Syria's Assad Reportedly Denies Use Of Chemical Weapons." (Los Angeles Times)
-- "Russia Warns U.S. Of Repercussions From Syria Action." (Bloomberg News)
-- "U.N. Team Visiting 'Chemical Attack' Site." (BBC News)