Like most people, it seems, I almost instantly believed the barrage of media reports from all over the world this past week, accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against civilians on August 21.
Here’s what we know: This Assad guy is a lunatic. Of course he’d do something like this, right?
Yes, he is a lunatic. He is a dictator. But did he really use chemical weapons, or is that just the common belief bolstered by the non-stop media reports quoting people who actually have no more knowledge of what happened than the rest of us?
Not that he gets a free pass if he didn’t, he’s still a lunatic, but let’s look at some evidence — or lack of evidence.
The more I read on the subject, the more it begins to look like Iraq in 2002.
Before I go on, I want to mention that I am not actually making a judgement on this. I haven’t got a firm opinion one way or another because evidence for either argument is so scant. I’m just making points and asking questions.
So, with that said…
Quick timeline:
- Sec. of State John Kerry requested that the attack sites be made accessible for UN inspection.
- Kerry then accused the Syrian government of delaying permission to assess the sites, noting that evidence could have been destroyed before the inspection began. In reality, the request for inspection was not made until August 24, and was actually granted the next day. Furthermore, experts say sarin gas can be detected for months after its use.
- Kerry then advised that the inspection be abandoned as it was “no longer safe” and…
“Administration officials made clear [that] Mr. Obama would make his decision based on the U.S. assessment and not the findings brought back by the U.N. inspectors.”
- Wall Street Journal
Are you having Iraq flashbacks yet?
Well, you should be, because this is eerily similar to what happened in 2002. The Bush administration ignored the fact that a UN inspection turned up no evidence of WMDs.
However, it has been reported that the UN inspection team in Syria spent only about 90 minutes at one of the attack sites. Apparently the Assad regime warned the inspectors that their safety in the affected areas could not be guaranteed. Ultimately, 90 minutes amounts to what must have been a very limited inspection at this particular site, so who really knows what further evidence could have been gleaned from a longer one?
More doubts:
- Spent rockets which appeared to be ‘homemade’ were found at attack sites. Would the Syrian government be using homemade rockets? Seems more like something one of the various opposition groups would use, doesn’t it?
- Given its position on Syria, can evidence from Israel be trusted? (The intercepted conversation between Syrian officials discussing the attack).
Assad has called the notion that he would use chemical weapons “illogical”.
It is illogical. But that’s not a good enough reason to believe a lunatic.
So first, why is it illogical? Because according to most reports, Assad was doing pretty well, all things considered. To risk American retaliation by doing something he really didn’t even need to do would be a stupid move.
Did the rebels use the chemical weapons, knowing the Assad regime would take the blame?
It doesn’t seem like a totally crazy notion. Think about it.
People have this notion of Assad, bad, Rebels, good. But there are literally hundreds of factions of opposition rebels, some admittedly Al-Qaeda factions.
To automatically dismiss the notion that the rebels used the chemical weapons themselves is a bad idea.
The thinking that would have informed that decision would have been: “The end will justify the means”. In other words, there is a clear motive for why some rebel factions would have seen this as a feasible option. Naturally, the world would believe it was an attack by Assad on his own people, things start to happen, and before you know it, the Assad regime topples. Clearly this is a massive amount of speculation, but who really knows?
Because then you have this guy (a former high-ranking Syrian diplomat) who says Assad has been planning a chemical attack since last summer.
The Military Response
To justify a military response from the outside world, we keep hearing that Syria can’t simply ignore the decisions of the Chemical Weapons Treaty and go unpunished — but Syria never signed the treaty. Not that this gives them a free pass, but it’s worth mentioning.
So, what happens next?
There are four American destroyers sitting somewhere in the Mediterranean…just waiting.
If a military strike is launched against Syria, what good does it do? What’s the goal?
“Punishment” doesn’t seem like a very specific objective.
What happens if Israel becomes a target? Israel by the way, were testing missiles over the Mediterranean today. All signs just seem to be pointing to a happy ending, don’t they?
Or what happens when nothing happens? What happens if the American strikes aren’t enough to deter Assad and he carries happily along, at least for the time being, which is entirely possible. Does the U.S. fire again? Once it inserts itself militarily, it has to be able to say its actions resulted in success, but what is success?
“It beggars belief that we appear to be considering an armed attack on Syria with no clear purpose and no achievable objective.”
- Sir Andrew Green
Ultimately, is punishing a government (who you think used chemical weapons), really worth it to further destabilize the entire region?
It sounds like a horrible thing to say, but will we care so much about the lives lost on August 21st, ten years from now when Syria becomes Iraq 2.0?
Congressional Authorization
As it stands, according to the Washington Post, 21 Senators are either against military action or leaning no, 59 are undecided and 20 are in favor of military action.
On the House side, it’s a very different and more complicated story, as it usually is.
According to the Post, 36 House representatives have indicated that they are adamantly against military action, while it is estimated that another 67 are leaning no and 93 are undecided. Then, 16 representatives are in favor of military action.
That doesn’t get us to 435 House members, but obviously only those who have shown some prior inclination were included in the Post‘s analysis.
Finally, if you want to read a far more detailed and intellectual analysis than my own, check out William R. Polk’s thoughts on the crisis at The Atlantic.
Filed under: Events, Media, News, Politics
