From Elise Labott, CNN Security Clearance:  With the Syria deal in jeopardy and questions as to whether Syria will truly cease its military operations, particularly after Syrian troops fired across the border into Turkey, discussions within the Obama administration about creating a Syria-Turkey border “buffer zone” have intensified, State Department officials tell CNN.

“It would be correct to say this idea is getting another look in the last week or so,” one official said about the buffer zone.

In a statement issued Monday, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry said “Syrian citizens who took refuge in our country from the brutality of the current regime in Syria are under Turkey’s full protection. We will certainly take necessary measures if such incidents reoccur.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about a possible buffer zone with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Monday during a phone conversation about the crisis, officials said.

State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters that Clinton invited Davutoglu to address G8 ministers Wednesday afternoon by videoconference to discuss the crisis in Turkey.  (photo: Reuters)

From Simon Tisdall, the Guardian:  Barack Obama’s ”shrug your shoulders” Syria policy, faithfully imitated by Britain and the rest of the do-nothing Nato crew, is no longer sustainable politically, strategically or morally. Weekend cross-border incidents involving Turkey and Lebanon show instability inexorably spreading. The longer this goes on, the worse it is going to get… .

“A civil war is taking place in Syria,” a Washington Post editorial warned. The Annan plan had predictably failed, it said. “Mr Annan and his backers have merely provided cover for Mr Assad to go on slaughtering his own people.

“Mr Obama may believe that by fleeing from leadership through figments such as the Annan plan, he is avoiding ‘militarisation’. In fact, he is ensuring that thousands more people will die.” The Post went on to urge military support for the Syrian opposition, backed if need be by Nato military intervention.

Strategically speaking, the western rationale for non-intervention in Syria has sprung some Titanic-size holes. The Turkish and Lebanese incidents are a measure of how one justification for inaction – that direct western involvement could precipitate a wider conflict – is now very much beside the point. Syria is burning out of control. The fire is already spreading… .

[The Editor of the Small Wars Journal Robert] Haddick suggests that asymmetrical methods, rather than head-on military confrontation, will be the preferred weapons of choice. “Saudi Arabia hopes to buy the Syrian army rather than bomb it. For this war, the kingdom’s oil-financed bank accounts may be more powerful than its squadrons of F-15 fighter-bombers. Until some event triggers military escalation, Riyadh and its friends will have to perfect the black arts of covert action and irregular warfare.”

But this argument ignores the moral imperative. The US, like Britain and other Nato powers, are sworn to uphold the UN’s doctrine of “responsibility to protect” (much trumpeted in the Libyan campaign). Even if they were not, it is difficult, morally speaking, to continue to limit their involvement to the promulgation of easily ignored deadlines, non-military aid, sanctions of dubious effectiveness and statements of condemnation.

This is not an argument for an all-out Nato invasion of Syria. But given the scale of the suffering, tried and tested steps such as the setting up of humanitarian corridors and safe havens connected to Turkey and protected by a no-fly zone cannot be resisted much longer.

It was done in Benghazi in response to a mere threat from Gaddafi. It may now have to be done in Syria, whatever Russia may say, if only because the slaughter there is for real, and all other options have been tried and failed. A shoulder shrug will just not cut it any more.  (photo:Getty)

From Abdullah Bozkurt, Today’s Zaman:  A number of actions recently taken by government agencies in Turkey indicate that Ankara has been preparing for the inevitability of sending military troops to Syria to establish a humanitarian corridor. The corridor would be used to reach cities and towns under siege as well as possibly create a safety buffer zone for internally displaced persons (IDPs).

President Abdullah Gül and Defense Minister İsmet Yılmaz both signaled last week that a military option is on the table and Turkey must be prepared for the possibility. Prime MinisterRecep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Saturday, the eve of his landmark visit to China, that Turkey will take its own measures against Syria after the UN deadline for the cease-fire in Syria. The Turkish Red Crescent (Kızılay) announced on Friday that it was preparing to deliver humanitarian aid to Syria in the event that Turkey or the international community calls for a “humanitarian aid corridor” inside Syrian territory.

What will happen if the UN cannot get its act together, and Russia and China end up using their veto powers for the third time? Ankara will probably invoke the 1998 Adana agreement with Syria to justify the military interference while calling on NATO members for the application of the Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The article was invoked by the US for the first time in October 2001, when NATO determined that the terrorist attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty. Since the Assad regime allows the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and its affiliates to launch attacks on Turkish soil and harbors some 1,500 to 2,000 hard-core PKK militants in areas close to the Turkish border, Turkey can very well utilize the NATO security cover for assistance… .

On Oct. 20, 1998, both Turkey and Syria signed the Adana Agreement, which set out very explicit terms for preventing PKK activities in Syria. It squarely puts all the responsibility on the Syrian government in this matter. For example, Article 1 of the Adana Agreement states that Syria will not permit any activity on its territory aimed at jeopardizing the “security and stability of Turkey.” Be it PKK terrorism or a crackdown on the opposition, both would be considered threats that seriously jeopardize the “security and stability of Turkey” — in which case Turkey reserves the right to take necessary measures for self-defense, including armed interference into Syrian territory to contain the threat… .

But the most comprehensive deal came in 2010 when the two sides inked a significant agreement on cooperation against terror. It was signed on Dec. 21, 2010 by Davutoğlu and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem and ratified by the Turkish Parliament on April 6, 2011. This agreement has 23 articles, which have important implications for Turkey. For example, Article 7 of the agreement gives both parties the right to conduct joint operations in each other’s territory. If Turkey officially recognizes the Syrian National Council (SNC) as the only legitimate government of Syria, which is likely to happen in the upcoming Paris meeting of the Friends of Syria if Assad fails to follow through on the Annan plan, it can very well secure the consent of the SNC to launch joint operations with the Free Syrian Army against Assad’s forces… .

All in all, the urgency to act against the Assad regime’s aggression on its own citizens, in order to stabilize the country as soon as possible, is a sensitive issue for the national security of Turkey. For that Ankara is willing, even determined, according to some officials, to invoke unilateral or multilateral legal remedies at its disposal. It clearly prefers the multilateral approach for the time being. But when push comes to shove, Turkey will not hesitate to act alone, as it did in 1998 in Syria or in 1975 in Cyprus. Watch out for the signal that will indicate that Turkey is ready to act: When the government decides to seek a mandate from the Turkish Parliament for troop deployment in a foreign country, as it must according to the Constitution, it will mean the real warning shot for military incursion into Syria has already been fired.  (photo: Getty)

From Doyle McManus, the Los Angeles Times:  At a meeting in Istanbul last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced an escalation of U.S. aid to the opposition. In public, she pointed to a doubling of medical and other humanitarian aid, plus the provision of communication equipment. Less publicly, officials confirmed that the new package also includes “non-lethal” help that will go to the Free Syrian Army, the newly formed opposition armed forces, including night-vision goggles and U.S. intelligence information such as early warnings of Syrian troop movements.

And while the United States has decided not to provide weapons to the rebels, it isn’t objecting to military funding or arms shipments from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab states that would like to see Assad fall… .

If the pace of the killing slows, that could buy time: time for economic sanctions to undermine the regime, time to cajole Russia to switch sides and help pull the rug out from Assad, but also time for the opposition and its new army to organize themselves into a more effective force.

If those measures fail to bring Assad down, the administration appears divided on how quickly to move toward military intervention. The Pentagon is reluctant to get involved in another war, as the Pentagon usually is. Obama’s national security adviser, Tom Donilon, has also weighed in against any post-Libya temptation to “militarize” another problem. Clinton’s State Department has sounded the most hawkish notes — in part, perhaps, because it’s Clinton who has delivered most of the administration’s public declarations that Assad must go.

But even the administration’s humanitarian hawks don’t think the moment for U.S. or NATO military intervention has arrived yet.

They’d like the U.N. Security Council to give its blessing first, or — if Russia and China continue to resist — at least NATO. They’d like the Syrian opposition to be better organized, with more assurance that military aid wouldn’t fall into the hands of radical Islamists. They’d like Turkey to establish safe havens for the opposition along its border with Syria.

Eventually, though, the question of military intervention will change from if to when. The United States is already a little bit pregnant — already committed to helping Assad fall. It’s merely looking for the least violent, lowest cost way to get there.  (photo: Getty)

From Nour Malas and Joe Parkinson, the Wall Street Journal:  Turkey has drawn up plans for safe zones across its border in Syria to help absorb refugees and is preparing to take more aggressive steps to protect Syrian civilians in the case of a spike in violence, and the failure of international diplomacy to halt the violence, a senior official said.

Ibrahim Kalin, the top adviser on the Middle East to Turkey’s prime minister, said Turkey has little faith that Damascus will hold to its pledge to enact a full cease-fire by next week, and is making these preparations based on the possibility that there could be a significant escalation of killing in the country.

Turkish officials say Ankara would move to create safe havens in Syrian territory—which would require military protection—only if the situation was deemed to be a threat to national security. Mr. Kalin cautioned that Turkey has no immediate intention of taking unilateral action, and that it is anxious not to shoulder the bulk of the burden of Syria’s crisis.

“The more intense it gets, the more countries like us will have to take more steps,” Mr. Kalin said in an interview in his office at Turkey’s Prime Ministry in Ankara. “If you have a situation which is completely out of control and the regime has started mass killing on a daily basis…then of course, things will take a different shape… .”

“The U.N. Security Council has indirectly supported the oppression,” Mr. [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan told lawmakers of his ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP. “To stand by, with your hands and arms tied, while the Syrian people are dying every day is to support the oppression… .”

Turkish adviser Mr. Kalin, a key interlocutor with Syria’s opposition, said Tuesday that Turkey would be compelled to act if the violence inside Syria swelled to the scale of “mass killing,” though he didn’t offer a figure that could trigger more aggressive steps.

Analysts close to Turkey’s government say policy makers have identified a threshold for the number of civilian deaths inside Syria which they will tolerate before sanctioning tougher action. Such a move could enable Ankara to intervene without approval by the U.N. Security Council. It could invoke the international “Responsibilty to Protect” doctrine, for example, which requires a majority vote at the UN General Assembly.

“There is a limit” to the killings Turkey can tolerate, said Taha Ozhan, President of The Foundation for Political, Economic and Social Research, an Ankara-based think-tank. “The numbers will be a turning point.”  (photo: Charlie Rose)

From the US Department of State:  Excerpts from interview of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by Wendell Goler, FOX News

QUESTION: The U.S. is apparently going beyond providing just humanitarian aid, strictly humanitarian aid, for the Syrian opposition forces. Tell me what we’re providing and why.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are going to be providing what you might call technical or logistical equipment – not arms, not military equipment, but communications equipment. We’ve learned that there’s a great deal of difficulty for the opposition to communicate with one another inside Syria, and from inside to outside to their counterparts who are along the border of Turkey or elsewhere. That will facilitate the safety as well as the movements of the people who are on the inside.

We have some intelligence capacity that we might be able to usefully offer. Now other countries are going to choose to provide different kinds of aid. Today, a group of countries announced that they were going to be funding some of the Free Syrian Army. That’s their choice, but what we think is appropriate for us is to try to facilitate the ability to communicate and to be protected and to know what is happening inside Syria to minimize civilian casualties.

QUESTION: On providing money to basically try and encourage members of the Syrian army to defect, that seems very close to arming the opposition, something the United States didn’t want to do for fear of raising the number of civilian casualties.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Right.

QUESTION: Why is it better to encourage defection? It seems like it’s another increase in violence.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think what you’ll find is that many thousands – the numbers vary, some it’s from, like, 10,000 to 40,000 of the soldiers have defected. If you really study the Syrian military movements, they have five brigades. They use two of them because they can’t trust the other three of them. And there have been a number of defections at senior officer levels, generals and colonels, many of whom are now across the border in Turkey kind of setting up headquarters.

So clearly, there needs to be a greater reassurance to those soldiers who defect that if they take their weapons and turn them against the military that continues to ruthlessly assault civilian targets, they’re going to – their family is going to be provided for, there is some safety net for them. I think that’s a sensible approach for those countries that are willing to do that.  (photo:AP)  (via @SlaughterAM)

From Aida Cerkez, the AP:  “Safe havens” for civilians in Syria? Think twice, Bosnians would warn.

With the U.N. unable to agree how to protect civilians against Bashar Assad’s forces, Western officials are discussing creation of safe corridors to deliver aid to Syrians trapped by the crackdown.

Similar measures failed badly during the war in Bosnia two decades ago that killed over 100,000 people and left millions homeless. The lesson of Bosnia is that without all sides honoring the agreement — and without a robust military response in case they don’t — such measures may have little effect and could actually prolong the misery.

In 1993, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution that declared six cities in Bosnia as “safe havens” for civilians and deployed military observers to monitor the situation.

The U.N. protected zones in places like the capital of Sarajevo or the eastern enclave of Srebrenica in effect became prisons, subject to relentless shelling by Bosnian Serb forces that often denied they were responsible. The U.N. never managed to get enough aid through the corridors and smugglers made fortunes… .

Those safe havens actually lengthened the 1992-95 war.

Instead of stopping the bloodshed, they simply reduced it to a politically acceptable level. It enabled both the attackers and the resistance to continue fighting.

Without a quick political settlement, neither side could achieve victory and both staved off decisive defeat. It was not until Serb forces overran Srebrenica in July 1995 that the West could no longer sit and watch and deployed troops to stop the carnage.

The enclave fell after senior U.N. commanders rejected a request by a few hundred Dutch peacekeepers deployed in Srebrenica for air strikes and its Muslim Bosnian residents swarmed a U.N. military base, still believing the Dutch would protect them.

But outnumbered and outgunned, the U.N. peacekeepers allowed the Serbs to separate women and children from men and execute some 8,000 males in what later became known as the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.

Hans Blom, who oversaw a Dutch government-commisioned investigation into the Srebrenica massacre, said he is “very pessimistic” about what the international community can do in Syria. He voiced skepticism over the U.N.’s concept of “safe zones” or “safe areas,” calling it a very vague notion and difficult to enforce… .

Blom said that for now he doesn’t see a role for international peacekeepers in Syria because there is no peace to keep and any humanitarian workers who were to enter the country would face massive violence. Only a massive military intervention could stop the violence, he argued.

“Only if there is a very determined outside force willing to use military means, it’s maybe possible,” he said. “Interventions are a very complicated thing. And the terrible thing, of course, is that doing nothing is as bad.”

From the Office of John McCain:  [A]t the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and Local Coordinating Committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces. To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country.

The ultimate goal of airstrikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the north, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad. These safe havens could serve as platforms for the delivery of humanitarian and military assistance – including weapons and ammunition, body armor and other personal protective equipment, tactical intelligence, secure communications equipment, food and water, and medical supplies. These safe havens could also help the Free Syrian Army and other armed groups in Syria to train and organize themselves into more cohesive and effective military forces, likely with the assistance of foreign partners.

The benefit for the United States in helping to lead this effort directly is that it would allow us to better empower those Syrian groups that share our interests – those groups that reject Al-Qaeda and the Iranian regime, and commit to the goal of an inclusive democratic transition, as called for by the Syrian National Council. If we stand on the sidelines, others will try to pick winners, and this will not always be to our liking or in our interest. This does that mean the United States should go it alone. We should not. We should seek the active involvement of key Arab partners such as Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Jordan, and Qatar – and willing allies in the E.U. and NATO, the most important of which in this case is Turkey.

There will be no U.N. Security Council mandate for such an operation. Russia and China took that option off the table long ago. But let’s not forget: NATO took military action to save Kosovo in 1999 without formal U.N. authorization. There is no reason why the Arab League, or NATO, or a leading coalition within the Friends of Syria contact group, or all of them speaking in unison, could not provide a similar international mandate for military measures to save Syria today.

Could such a mandate be gotten? I believe it could be. Foreign capitals across the world are looking to the United States to lead, especially now that the situation in Syria has become an armed conflict. But what they see is an Administration still hedging its bets – on the one hand, insisting that Assad’s fall is inevitable, but on the other, unwilling even to threaten more assertive actions that could make it so.

The rhetoric out of NATO has been much more self-defeating. Far from making it clear to Assad that all options are on the table, key alliance leaders are going out of their way to publicly take options off the table. Last week, the Secretary-General of NATO, Mr. Rasmussen, said that the alliance has not even discussed the possibility of NATO action in Syria – saying, quote, ‘I don’t envision such a role for the alliance.’ The following day, the Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral James Stavridis, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that NATO has done no contingency planning – none – for potential military operations in Syria.

That is not how NATO approached Bosnia. Or Kosovo. Or Libya. Is it now the policy of NATO – or the United States, for that matter – to tell the perpetrators of mass atrocities, in Syria or elsewhere, that they can go on killing innocent civilians by the hundreds or thousands, and the greatest alliance in history will not even bother to conduct any planning about how we might stop them? Is that NATO’s policy now? Is that our policy? Because that is the practical effect of this kind of rhetoric. It gives Assad and his foreign allies a green light for greater brutality.

Excerpt from remarks by Senator John McCain on the situation in Syria on the floor of the U.S. Senate.  (photo: Reuters)

US Senator John McCain Calls For Air Strikes on Syria

From the Editors of the Los Angeles Times:  War is not something to blunder into blithely, and no country — no matter how powerful — can solve all the problems of all the countries in the world. So when is it right to go to war? We’ve said before that we like the formulation ofRichard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who distinguishes between “wars of necessity” — those prompted by an invasion or other direct threat to vital national interests — and “wars of choice,” which are not inherently good or bad but ought to be rare and ought to be undertaken only if they can be reasonably assumed to accomplish more than they cost.

In the case of a war of choice waged primarily for humanitarian reasons, there are a number of rules that should guide American engagement, in our view. The provocation must be deemed severe enough to justify putting American lives at risk: Genocide, for example, shouldn’t be allowed to continue just because its perpetrator invokes national sovereignty. Before an intervention begins, policymakers should determine that all the alternatives short of war have been exhausted. If the plan is to aid a rebel group, as in Libya or, potentially, Syria, planners should be sure of who those new allies are and what they stand for. Countries should seek the widest possible support before committing troops or resources; Obama was right to insist on the backing of the U.N. Security Council and the Arab League before taking action in Libya. Where possible, intervention should be undertaken by multilateral organizations rather than individual nations. Once war is underway, planners should set narrowly tailored, definable and achievable aims.

As the U.S. has been reminded in recent years, there should also be a credible exit plan and a strategy for a war’s aftermath. Nation-building requires a commitment of time and great resources. Though policymakers sometimes forget it, wars pile on debt for future generations to pay.

These conditions have not been met in Syria. This is not a war of necessity for the United States; our vital national interests are not in danger. To justify American involvement — limited or otherwise — policymakers have yet to answer a number of questions. Have all diplomatic alternatives been exhausted? Can Russia and China be won over? What is the objective, the strategy, the end game?

In recent years, the United Nations has enunciated a doctrine known as “responsibility to protect,” which postulates that the world community shares a responsibility to defend populations from atrocities such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We agree, but what’s happening in Syria doesn’t rise to the level of genocide. Secretary of StateHillary Rodham Clinton said this week that Assad fits the definition of a war criminal, and others have argued that he is committing crimes against humanity. Our view is that the international community has a moral responsibility to work urgently to end the violence in Syria, but we do not believe it has reached the point at which military intervention is justified.  (photo: AP)

From Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO:  Our Chicago Summit will be an important event. Because NATO is busier than ever protecting our shared values and our shared security.Today, over 140,000 military personnel are engaged in NATO-led missions on three continents – from Kosovo to the coast of Somalia.

Afghanistan of course remains our main operation — and it may surprise you that almost 40,000 troops there are European. We continue to keep the peace in the Balkans. And last year, we successfully enforced a United Nations Security Council Resolution to protect the people of Libya.

Let me describe briefly how NATO works. In essence, it’s all about transatlantic teamwork.

First and foremost, NATO is a dynamic forum for consultation on our security. Your voice carries a lot of influence — because of the size and political and military power of the United States. But before a decision is made, all Allies must agree. Every NATO decision is taken by consensus – so it has the legitimacy of collective agreement among 28 sovereign, democratic nations.

Second, all NATO Allies are covered by Article 5 of our founding Washington treaty. Art 5 states that an armed attack against one or more Allies shall be considered as an attack against all – all for one, one for all. And the first time Article 5 was invoked was in the hours after the 9/11 attacks. Soon after, NATO aircraft deployed to help patrol and defend American airspace. That was visible proof of transatlantic solidarity in your skies.

And Allied support to the United States has not been limited to countering terrorism. Following Hurricane Katrina, in August 2005, NATO coordinated a major relief operation by European nations and delivered a huge quantity of food and emergency supplies.

Third, NATO backs words with concrete action. Collectively, our military forces are the best in the world. Their training and equipment are second to none. And they have a unique record of getting things done, even in the most difficult circumstances. NATO doesn’t just talk about security – NATO delivers security.

Finally, NATO works more and more with partner countries, as diverse as South Korea, Kazakhstan, Australia and Morocco. And they want to work with us. because they know NATO and they trust NATO. In Afghanistan, 50 nations are part of the ISAF mission – that’s one quarter of the countries of the world, and the biggest coalition in history. In Libya, our partners from the region gave us priceless political and operational support. And we are keen to engage our partners even more closely in sharing the security burden around the world… .

We face many new threats. Terrorism, piracy, cyber warfare, the disruption to our energy supplies, and the world’s most dangerous people getting their hands on the world’s most dangerous weapons.

These global threats are too big and complex for any country to tackle on its own – even for your remarkable country. These challenges know no borders. They can only be addressed effectively together with friends, partners and Allies. And that is why today NATO is more important than ever.

Introductory remarks by NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the National Defense University.   (photo: NATO)