- Bishop in Aleppo: ‘We Christians live in fear in Syria’
- Oscar Pistorius vomits during graphic testimony
- Toronto Mayor Rob Ford flubs daylight saving time advice: ‘Turn your clocks back’
- Americans don’t support sending U.S. troops to Ukraine
- Florida lawmakers move to wipe corrupt ‘Boss Hogg’ town from map
- N.C. math whiz to unveil secret of March Madness picks
- An appealing offer: Chiquita merges with Fyffes to make world’s largest banana firm
- Amnesty International says Syria guilty of war crimes for food blockade
- Mitch McConnell on beating tea party: ‘We are going to crush them’
- Adam Lanza’s dad: He would’ve killed me ‘in a heartbeat’
Taxpayers must pay the freight for over-budget train projects
Topic - Nora Bensahel
The Pentagon's most likely means of attacking Syria will not degrade or deter the regime's use of chemical weapons, and could drag the U.S. more deeply into Syria's civil war, retired military officers and analysts say.
A Washington think tank founded by President Obama's first Pentagon policy chief has issued a report criticizing the administration's defense budget, which the think tank's founder played a role in developing.
The Pentagon "will still have to reduce end strength, particularly in the Army, eliminate some force structure, curtail modernization programs, and even keep training and readiness below ideal levels in order to achieve the required savings," said Nora Bensahel, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
"If it was seen by Assad and his leadership as something that was necessary for the regime to survive, that you couldn't use other weapons to do that, and that activity had to be done, then no matter what we do, it will have no effect on his future calculations," Ms. Bensahel said. "It's very hard to know what will deter him in the future."