I normally try to answer my own questions rather than asking the community to do it, but things are hectic around here lately. So, here’s a challenge. Find out when the UN inspectors arrived in Syria (I believe it was eight days ago) and what three suspected chemical attacks they were scheduled to investigate, and the dates of those attacks. I ask because I just read this Reuters article that suggests it is already too late to investigate the chemical attack that occurred five days ago. A sampling…
Syria agreed on Sunday to allow the inspectors to visit the site. The United States and its allies say evidence has been destroyed by government shelling of the area over the past five days, and the Syrian offer to allow inspectors came too late…
…In London, Foreign Secretary William Hague said evidence of a chemical attack could have already been destroyed by subsequent artillery shelling in the areas or degraded in the days following the strike.
“We have to be realistic now about what the U.N. team can achieve,” he told reporters.
I am interested to know why the UN inspectors were sent to Syria to investigate suspected chemical attacks that took place months ago but any investigation of an attack from last week is hopeless and worthless.
If the evidence decays so quickly then the original inspections were hopeless and worthless. We proles may be stupid, but this doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
The whole thing is fishy. The use of chemical weapons is a dangerous escalation but a rush to a deeper intervention after accepting 2.5 years of civil war and ~100,000 dead with conventional weapons is strange. Would I put it past rebel forces to use chemical weapons in order to force a Western response? No. We still don’t know who was responsible for the first alleged use of chemical weapons, do we?
Dempsey doesn’t want us involved in Syria. He’ll go quiet once the President makes up his mind.
And then there is this:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/23/un_blocking_its_own_chemical_weapons_investigatio
n_into_syria
That was only due to security concerns:
Seems to have been superseded by events, in any case:
Looks like they have overruled themselves in this instance.
I really don’t think Obama and Kerry want a piece of this action either. I’m guessing there are a lot of pressures being brought to bear from, ironically, both Israel and the Gulf states in unison.
Having said that it is entirely credible that the US is financing, training and/or leading insurgents based in Jordan into Syria and that this may change the balance of power, such as it is, over coming weeks and months. We shall see. But I’m not expecting much ‘shock and awe’ this time around. Way too messy.
If one is going to claim the rebels did this, which is plausible, one would probably have to find an explanation with avoided extensive Sunni civilian casualties.
The Russian case for the rebel’s use of chemical weapons at Khan al-Asal is a bit thin, though it may be true that the rebels got their hands on some chemical mortar rounds and used them. The Russian evidence however is, if anything, more controvertible than that implicating the Syrian regime in other instances.
Firstly, it relies on claims that Russian tests have identified chemical weapons, though we must rely on them solely for chain of custody validation. Putin, who raised this issue in remarks in June, goes on to claim that we “know” that al-Nusra was detained in Adana, Turkey in May with chemical weapons and that an al-Qaeda chemical weapons laboratory was raided in Iraq in June. True at face value, but go read the original stories for yourself and see if either one seems to credibly fit into the context the Russians are trying to claim.
I’m not saying that the rebels didn’t use chemical weapons, there is circumstantial evidence that they did, but the international conspiracy theory of their sourcing being woven by Putin seems pretty flimsy, especially their tale of a post-Iraq Ba’ath party chemical weapons underground.
The use of chemical weapons is a dangerous escalation but a rush to a deeper intervention after accepting 2.5 years of civil war and ~100,000 dead with conventional weapons is strange.?
Not so strange when you consider the almost century-old global norm against chemical weapons usage.
We still don’t know who was responsible for the first alleged use of chemical weapons, do we?
We still don’t know if those earlier uses even took place. As you might recall, it was the lack of evidence that chemical weapons had even been used that caused the White House to shoot down the previous two proposals to launch air strikes.
While not pertinent to your specific assignment this has been nagging at me for weeks. I was sure I had read an account from a defecting technician somewhere regarding an insidious aspect of the chemical weapons narrative which seems relevant to the conflicting claims of nerve agent use:
A similar allegation has been made much more recently and from an infamous source, suggesting that this is one possible reason for US insistence that the inspection comes ‘too late:’
Usual caveats to Debka sourced material apply, they are as often a source of disinformation as fact, but it is interesting to correlate Al Jazeera’s May report and this one. This adulteration of deadly agents could explain much but it doesn’t answer the question of who is responsible, it just subtly changes the context.
Oil, and US/Israeli imperialism.
Is there ever another answer? Is there even a question this doesn’t answer?
To the UN, you and Booman, the likelihood that an inspection finds nothing was mooted from the outset, my emphasis:
Given that it was Syria which requested the Khan al-Assal visit it seems there is an element of geopolitical theatre to these UN inspections all round.
Yeah, the United States said it had conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and a strong alliance with Osama bin Laden.
A United States statement that it has conclusive evidence is worthless.
That’s correct on historical principles although the cited claim was from back in June. In this case the MSF has confirmed scores if not hundreds of deaths by neurotoxic agent; unlike 2003 somebody has used chemical weapons, it seems clear, we just don’t know who.
I’m guessing the alignment of the affected neighbourhoods would be the most compelling clue. I just don’t see the rebels, assuming they had the means to deliver these warheads, afflicting Sunni populations.
What?
The rebels would only attack themselves with chemical weapons. That’s the whole point. It’s not to win by gassing the Assad regime. It’s to win by getting the West to come in against Assad and tip the scales. Were they to attack the Assad regime with chemical weapons, their cause would be lost immediately.
If so their cause was lost at Khan al-Assal, no? Because I don’t hear a strong counterargument to the accusation that they used chemical weapons, though probably not neurotoxins, there in March.
While it remains unclear who perpetrated the attacks recently the scale of the attack and the apparent use of neurotoxins, which require at least competent handling of precursor chemicals with some shelf-life limitations, and a reasonably sophisticated delivery system, tends to suggest the regime.
I understand your focus on the illogic of the timing, coinciding with the UN inspectors’ visit, but wonder if there is an alternate explanation. Looking at the motive and opportunity for both suspected perpetrators it strikes me that Assad has another competing motive, to comprehensively disrupt any bilateral discussions between the US and Iran which might eventuate since Rouhani’s elevation to the presidency. Hard to say but that might also be considered an existential threat to his regime.
Syria might be the current game in the region but Iran’s nuclear program seems to be a more important strategic issue to all concerned.
Correction: the Bush administration said it has conclusive proof the Saddam had WMDs.
Senatorial-candidate Obama said it did not, just as he said there was no conclusive evidence of chemical attacks in Syria the last two times the charges were made.
If you want to look at the historical record, you don’t get to cherry-pick only the least relevant case.
.
Why less credible than the utter political bs and propaganda coming from Obama, Hague, Fabius and Erdogan. You noticed I didn’t say John Kerry, he has worked tirelessly for a comprehesive solution to ME problems.
Got thumbs up from Oui and Joe from Lowell.
My job here is done…
To one of the three sites intended to be inspected:
It is worth noting that the Khan al-Assal inspection was, by this account, at Syria’s request. Also the following seems highly relevant, my emphasis:
Kind of puts the whole thing in a different light at least in regards to justifying a retaliation against Syria. As for when the team arrived that is less clear, some members have been in Syria for weeks, apparently, but Foreign Policy makes the following claim:
Still doesn’t really answer your sensible question about what they might expect find weeks after an incident.
.
Reminds me very strongly of the bs coming from the White House in the months leading up to the Baghdad bombardements in March 2003. What’s more strange is leading up to the G8 Conference in June, President Obama went through the same motions we have to act, a red line has been crossed. It killed off a chance for dialogue with Russia’s Putin after Lavrov and Kerry agreed to hold Geneva 2 talks for a political solution. Only difference, the US doesn’t lead but follows in step with the bs coming from Erdogan Turkey, Cameron UK and Hollande in France. All four nations have stated it’s not credible to let the UN inspection team visit the site after a week. All four nations maintain their intelligence point to a chemical attack and the perpetrator is the Syrian government. Appears last Saturday military preparations have been discussion in meeting of the NSC and final decision for execution rests with the President.
As I have written, the decision will be based on the Kosovo portrayal and the new R2P principle, an humanitarian crisis is blamed on the dictator and cause for his overthrow. Looking at the meetings between foreign ministers across the region, the joint allies on this operation will be Israel, Turkey, Jordan, UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. One of the biggest liars on this topic is UK FM William Hague. how I hate this man! He still thinks he overseas the British Empire.
My calculus is, the parties in the White House are hopelessly divided on the Syrian issue – Rice and Kerry: War Inside the White House.
My recent diaries:
○ CW Experts Skeptical About US Claim Use of Sarin Gas by Syria June 15, 2013
○ Kerry On a Mission to Convince Friends of a Political Solution in Syria June 26, 2013
○ Syrian Opposition Forces Caught with Sarin Gas in Turkey May 30, 2013
.
Fore the reason explained right in the passage you quoted:
evidence has been destroyed by government shelling of the area over the past five days
The area of the chemical attack has been subject to intensive artillery bombardment, potentially destroying the evidence. This is not true of the previous sites.