Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Continuing coverage of the breaking news out of Syria moments ago the Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said that the Obama administration is rethinking its opposition.
To arming the Syrian rebels and went on to say the White House has not made a final decision.
In other words hello everyone how to feel about this.
It comes after the White House told lawmakers last week it believes that Syria did use chemical weapons to kill its own people.
But they're not sure let's with the said last week.
Of course President Obama said that would be game changer.
Which hasn't changed Jennifer Griffin -- the Pentagon Jennifer -- what's the context here did it sound like this is a big deal or just.
An off handed remark -- what.
Well -- know I think he actually indicated where the White House and the Pentagon where their thoughts are right now.
The White House and pentagon are essentially looking at three options they're looking to set up a no fly zone.
Or limited airstrikes or arming the rebels or some combination of those three Defense Secretary hagel just moments ago standing next to the British defence secretary.
Gave an indication today which way the White House and pentagon are leaning.
Think you are rethinking.
-- administration is rethinking its opposition army.
-- -- Today as the sides forces moved into homes the Washington Post editorial board -- A scathing condemnation of what the president's let what they described as the president's lack of leadership and absence of policy on Syria quote.
The model that is president Obama's policy on Syria has grown still muddy here.
His week in legal listed words about the need to verify a chain of custody on any chemical weapons.
Use and his declaration that even a hard confirmation would -- only two quote rethink of the range of options simply invite further chemical attacks.
Defensive Defense Secretary.
Philip Hammond of Britain suggested.
That in the next few weeks an EU arms embargo against Syria is set to expire so what.
Secretary -- -- was indicating is that perhaps the US and the UK will be looking.
In the future in the coming weeks -- arming the rebels shepherd.
You -- Jennifer the concern has been all along that the Syrian regime as it crumbles might lose control of its own chemical weapons.
And I wonder if if we should take this is a sign that that concern.
Has ratcheted up so.
Well in fact there were some.
Reports today in newspaper suggesting that some rogue elements of the Asad regime may have gotten their hands on some chemical weapons.
But that is not the case according to UK Defense Secretary Philip Hammond just moments ago here at the Pentagon.
And the evidence that we have is that the regime.
Is largely in control.
-- all -- it's chemical weapons principal chemical weapons sites that is not the same as saying.
That we are able to account for every lost unit of chemical stocks.
But there is no evidence that the Rasheed.
Has lost control of significant chemical weapon sites yet.
I am told from pentagon sources that there are thirteen fixed chemical weapons sites and forty mobile chemical weapons sites.
That they are looking at.
But it's not clear Shepperd how arming the rebels deals with the chemical weapons problem.
Yes hearted hard to others together to Jennifer thank you -- Michael Hanlon now.
Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution with some context on this breaking news Michael what do you make of this.
I -- well clearly.
There's some legal rational that has been perhaps violated now with the chemical weapon and that they make the Obama administration be -- -- -- -- -- It made it wanted to do before but didn't feel like he could fully justified but one optical interpretation another word.
It's Syria violate the chemical weapons convention violate the Geneva convention.
Something so -- even though it doesn't really change the basic.
Picture of the war very much -- doesn't repeat that the most of -- -- If it crosses a legal threshold and that may help explain it or just may have been the straw that broke the camel's back to this president -- As you know it wanted to stay out of this public -- -- that we Americans are tired of war and we don't do very well on the Middle East we get involved.
But -- -- you just can't watch this thing go on indefinitely and just sort of you know hold your breath that the -- -- at some -- overthrow it thought.
So it makes that then -- -- the last brought even though you're -- itself is not a huge change in the -- the wars in -- I'd -- -- interpretation as possible today.
You -- you've seen the reports no doubt that there's concern about these chemical weapons and that either the regime would or could or may be losing control of those chemical weapons that.
That that would that would change things.
-- but you know it you're right but it is it interesting how it might change and because all the stuff that we're talking about perhaps doing now could rip.
Weakening the regime even -- and adversity in the chemical weapon control even more doctorate at your top concern is not to be marked chemical weapon used.
-- either would likely want to negotiate a peace deal very quickly.
Or you would want to have western troops go in with bear fruit then.
Secure that site obviously that latter ideas and not -- -- -- there was we're going to perhaps.
Increase the strength of the insurgents that it actually worse -- the war initial are you updated data calculation is that these that'll improve the -- they can win this thing quickly.
When making decisions in day to day life -- often take a legal pad but the pros on one side the cons on the other side.
The cons involved -- getting involved in this thing take up more than a page Michael it's astounding.
Yeah you're right shepherd and you know what they know what's really talking about even in the Washington Post editorial that Jennifer -- if for example to.
It's what the end game here you know the idea or -- -- but that's not yet.
-- no more the end that the dot being overthrown in 2003 at the end of Iraq.
He's got to have a strategy for what you did not.
You know we don't want to another -- invasion US -- you know capability.
You gotta have some kind of a strategy.
Bought my best suggestion is nothing like Bosnia where you would try to negotiate essentially power sharing -- Bob partition of the country.
Thank you got that some kind of international force out.
Implement -- observed that he'll want that was struck between the various party area.
But what do you like -- or not but -- -- just sort of stop it would be needed here to really get you to a viable strategy to.
Did you know just.
Bombing at these sites to giving it you aren't the rebels doesn't really beat you do they plan.
Michael O'Hanlon from the Brookings Institution called him on the flies the news breaks appreciate it Michael.
-- -- --
Filter by section