I know that many hundreds (at least) of Syrians died in an attack that appears to have been chemical in nature, but I still cringe when I read stuff like the following in the New York Times:
Among American officials, there was a growing belief that chemical weapons had been used in the latest attack, early Wednesday east of Damascus — potentially the worst of its kind since Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds in Iraq in the 1980s — and little doubt that anyone but Mr. Assad’s forces would have used them.
I am okay with the “growing belief” that chemical weapons were used because that does, in fact, match up with the kind of injuries that we’re seeing. Obviously, it needs to be confirmed. As a factual matter, I can even understand why it could be a more lethal attack than the one Iraq carried out against the Kurds in the 1980’s. But “worse than Saddam” sets off some triggers for me, as does referencing the Halabja poison gas attack at all. I’m sorry, but the notion that we had to invade Iraq because he had gassed his own people fifteen years earlier is still an argument that haunts me. I know, I know, the attack in Syria happened only two days ago, but still…
Which gets us to the “little doubt that anyone but Mr. Assad’s forces would have used them.” I don’t know how finely grained our telemetry is or whether we had clear satellite coverage (I doubt it at two in the morning), so I don’t know how confident we are about where the rockets were launched from. I mean, let’s look very carefully at the following paragraph:
An opposition official described an assault that began shortly after 2 a.m., when the rockets, which they said were equipped with chemical weapons, were launched. Two were fired from a bridge on the highway from Damascus to Homs; the others were launched from a Sironex factory in the Qabun neighborhood of the Syrian capital. The Assad government has denied involvement, and Russian officials have accused the rebels of staging the attack.
An opposition official, who has every incentive to frame the Syrian government, said that the rockets were launched at 2 a.m. That’s fair enough; you can confirm that on Twitter. But is he the source for the next sentence about the launch-sites? From the flow of the article, it would appear so, but he isn’t actually sourced for those facts. Not that I trust the denials of the Syrians and the Russians, either, but someone has to be right here.
I’ll be candid. If you are fighting on the anti-Assad side, your only hope of winning in the near-term is if you can convince the world that the Assad regime launched a chemical attack. You have powerful or, at least, well-resourced allies in places like Saudi Arabia and Qatar that can probably secure a few chemical weapons. All the incentive seems to lie with the opposition.
On the other hand, U.N. weapons inspectors had scarcely set foot in Syria to investigate prior allegations of chemical attacks when this attack happened. Why would Syria try to prove their innocence in the prior attacks by allowing inspections, and then launch a chemical attack in their capital?
So, what really concerns me is the fact that American officials doubt anyone but the Assad regime “would” have used them. If they wrote “could,” I’d be more comfortable that they were relying on collected intelligence instead of mere psychology. Logic says that the Assad regime would have almost no incentive to do this and to do it now. They’ve been winning the war lately. They’re trying to clear their name from previous allegations.
Regardless of which side launched the attack, the logical victims would be the same (people in areas controlled or disputed by the rebels). So, the identity of the victims doesn’t help us. The point is, the only thing stopping the rebels from carrying out such an attack would be lack of opportunity and moral qualms. And I wouldn’t place too much faith in either of those two things.
So, we need officials with a little more imagination, please. And the facts. We already had the Gulf of Tonkin and the Iraq WMD fiasco, thank you.
