In assessing the administration’s case against the Assad regime, I am of two minds. The first is based on my own personal assessment of the motives and integrity of key administration figures, and the second is based on my assessment of how the world at large assesses their motives and integrity.
I’m satisfied that John Kerry and President Obama believe that they have sufficient proof to express high confidence in the regime’s culpability for the attacks. But I do not believe they have even come close to proving their case to the wider world that has not forgotten Colin Powell’s presentation in front of the United Nations in which he presented trumped up evidence against the Iraqi regime.
The evidence that the administration claims to have has not been shared or explained in a compelling way.
The body of information used to make this assessment includes intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation.
Here is the introductory summary that Secretary Kerry provided during his presentation of the evidence:
We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.
And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons.
We know that these were specific instructions.
We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.
And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness, and death. And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors.
This would all be very compelling if the United States government still maintained even a small bit of credibility on the international stage, but that is sadly not the case. If they want to convince people, they need to show us the evidence that the Assad regime began mixing chemicals three days before the attacks, and show us the explicit orders, and show us the gas masks, and show us how they know that rockets were used and how they know where and when they were launched and where and when they landed.
I understand that some evidence is being withheld to protect sources and methods, and that’s legitimate up to a point. But their argument so far is really still relying on people to trust them because they aren’t Bush and Powell. That’s enough, perhaps, for domestic consumption, but it is not enough for the global audience.
It should be noted that, despite all the rhetoric, the American intelligence community has only expressed “high confidence” in their case. That is the highest grade they can give themselves short of certainty, but it isn’t certainty. If they won’t show more of their work, the world is not even going to have “high confidence” let alone certainty that the United States is justified in attacking the regime. And I’m setting aside, for the moment, that the world could very well be convinced that the Assad regime is guilty and deserving of punishment and still not agree that the United States should deliver the punishment in the absence of a broad consensus rooted in international law. Without the approval of the UN Security Council, NATO, the Brits, the Arab League, or even Congress, the need for certainty is much greater.
I don’t think the administration in lying, and I think they are probably correct in their assessment, although I also believe it is possible that they are wrong. But it’s not me who matters. They haven’t even come close to satisfying the world that they’ve made their case. They need to do more work.
“We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.”
In the target area? WTF would they be doing there, since it was also claimed:
“We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.”
So the idea is that Assad sent CW people into opposition areas to “make preparations” (like what?), then they back off and launch CW rockets into those areas?
Assad has been launching rockets at opposition areas for quite a while now, rockets != rockets carrying CW.
There’s also the “how do you know that?” aspect, for the details. Satellite/NSA intel only gives so much. I’d be very surprised if Israeli intel wasn’t a big part of this ‘package’; and it isn’t as if Israel doesn’t have an agenda wrt Syria.
On the ground in the area can also mean launch sites.
That occurred at one of Syria’s chem weapons facilities, not at the targeted area. As in, it occurred at a place the Assad reime would use to prepare nerve agent and load it into the rocket delivery system.
Saw this floating around yesterday, and I think its message is important. We’ve probably all been guilty of it at some point or another:
An open letter on Syria to Western narcissists
I see it all the time. The “knee-jerk leftism” as the author calls it rears its head on virtually every story. It is tres chic to blame anything and everything worng in the world on the USA. Refusal to do so is (pardonnez-moi l’ironie) considered gauche. It’s taken over the Great Orange Fustercluck and it is why I no longer contribute to that site.
I saw that one. Made me question my own gut feelings and assumptions, which was uncomfortable but always worth it.
My preference is that the US do nothing. I don’t care one bit what the GOP complains about. I think the Administration’s case is silly and stinks of desperation.
Given Obama’s mastery of foreign policy, this entire escapade is curiously ham-handed. I wonder why.
“Without the approval of the UN Security Council…?” Russia and China are effectively blocking the only appropriate venue for a legal and timely response. It beats me how this is Obama and Kerry’s responsibility. It also beats me why they don’t receive a tiny fraction of the blame reserved for the US in general and the Obama administration in particular because their creature is a murderous tyrant and war criminal. But no, it is all Obama’s fault and the Left just cheerfully piles on. There is no conspiracy theory so outrageous that it hasn’t been splattered all over every front page in Left Blogistan. Sheesh.
Russia and China are blithely supporting an arguably criminal regime guilty of a ruthless and cold-blooded crime against humanity. This isn’t diplomacy it is cynical and selfish manipulation which leaves them with blood on their hands just as surely as Assad. Not to mention the religious maniacs of Iran for whom the dead Syrians are just so many apostates. Why isn’t the global social media hounding them? They could sort Assad out with a press conference.
Bastards. Why aren’t we pointing out that one of the warheads suspected in this war crime was of Russian manufacture and the other likely Iranian, that Iran is already deep in the frame for coveting weapons of mass destruction and has a track record of evasion, stalling and prevarication? That Russia’s and China’s internal security policies toward dissent are not so far removed from those which precipitated the Syrian revolt in the first place and like Assad their stranglehold on their own citizens is as much in play here as international geopolitics?
Why aren’t the tabloids referencing the Russia’s own cynical use of chemical weapons against its citizens in the recent past and strongly hinting that China’s support for Syria’s use of nerve gas suggests suspicious motives regarding her own intentions toward her Islamic and ethnic minorities. Why aren’t they struggling defensively against a headwind of wild conspiracy theories in helpless denial?
It maybe even worth suggesting the usefulness of a boycott or tariffs against Chinese-made goods. Think about it the next time you reach for your favourite consumer gadget or crappy consumer product. Sometimes I wonder that we aren’t our own worst enemy.
It’s a list of possible sources of support and legitimacy. The Security Council is on it, but I am certainly not blaming the administration for Russian or Chinese intransigence and complicity.
I can appreciate your position is evolving and I wasn’t directing my rant solely at your quoted comment. Though it triggered a frustration I have been feeling with the progressive blogosphere for days.
I’m guessing some of today’s most implacable sceptics and conspiracy theorists were among those who accepted the plainly fanciful Iraq evidence in 2003. It would be laughable if it was not such an embarrassment of critical thinking.
Not true. I would guess that the same segment on the Left that didn’t trust the government lies in 2003 don’t accept the government story today. That’s true in my case.
Are you still arguing that it appears that, according to what you’ve read, that Assad is responsible?
Nice touch, the “sceptics and conspiracy theorists” denegration, though. Can I toss a true believer back into your bunker?
The design of the UN Security Council with the five major powers (the countries holding those seats are in need of review) having veto power was a response to the events that ended the League of Nations. The facts of power are that a single power that intends on blocking something can do so without ending its membership in the body, a critical issue in 1945. The Soviet Union made the mistake of walking out on a vote (to symbolize its disagreement) when the vote on the Korean War came up. Neither it nor its successor Russia has made that mistake again. It now vetoes issues it deemed significant and abstains to show disagreement with issues that are not significant. Both Russia and China abstained in the vote on a no-fly zone in Libya based on assurances that regime change was not what was being authorized. The did not make that mistake again on the Syria vote.
The Russian use is as much of a red herring on chemical weapons as the issue of white phosphorus. The issue is that the Schedules for proscribed chemical weapons need to forbid more chemical agents. And in the opinion of many, that includes tear gas and pepper spray, both of which can be fatal under certain circumstance. The Russsian incident is very much like the US Waco incident.
Thanks for the history lesson on the UN. Fail to see the relevance, however, we all seem to understand that Russia and China have a veto. The question is what to do about it.
My comment about Russia’s culpability in the 2002 Nord-Ost siege is no more ludicrous than a fair bit of the nonsense I have seen asserted here and elsewhere in recent days regarding the Obama administration’s motives and conspiratorial intentions which was rather my point.
It prevents precipitate action and encourages negotiation to work out differences. What to do about it is the listen to the substantive objections of those vetoing.
The five permanent members have a habit of treating the UN Security Council as an international rubber stamp for what they want to do. Guess who’s done that the most and is resented for it?
So if the US can’t overcome the Russian or Chinese veto we just let it go?
In all seriousness: maybe. It’s possible to leave Russia and China with the shame of what they allowed to come to pass. The US is not omnipotent and cannot enforce the chemical weapons ban on its own.
It depends on whether we take the Chinese and Russian positions seriously. My current understanding from the media is that the US and Russia are still engaged in conversations directly between Kerry and Lavrov. No doubt Powers and her counterpart at the UN are kept in the loop. My guess is that China’s position will be coordinated with Russia, which is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
My understanding is that the Kerry/Lavrov dialogue ended negatively, at least for now, a few days ago. Hence my comment.
Lambert Strether, Corrente: Wheels Falling off the Imperial Reality-Creating Machine
You’re quoting Lambert?
Sigh.
I don’t deal much in ad hominem screening of information.
The point that I quoted is valid and symptomatic of a world with both growing citizen journalism, growing propaganda exploitation of social media, and increasing issues of independence and provenance of reports.
The rest of the articles raises points worth considering, especially how the Obama foreign and national security policy seems to have backed into the old PNAC seven-nations framework. Less continuity with the Bush administration policy could have broken out of that harmful pattern in US foreign relations. The post-Bush reality is that the US does not have the capability to be the global leader anymore, but it has the capability to be a global leader. The persistence in trying to maintain the US global superpower status has bankrupted us financially and diplomatically. As a result, we have not been returning to peace and prosperity but have been treading water at best.
The skepticism over the proposed US action and the way it was handled should be a wake up call to the Administration. The politics of spin is slowly dying when it comes to foreign affairs. And likely in the not to distant future with regard to electoral politics as well.
Are you suggesting that if Russia and China cynically uphold their Security Council veto in favour of their murderous ally, the UK bails, Germany hesitates, the Arab League prevaricates and NATO abdicates that the Syrian regime gets a pass? Because you can just about guarantee that is the state of play.
You might argue that if the US never suggested a military response things might be different but I’m guessing it still would have come down to a strongly worded letter and beyond that bupkis. Maybe a vote in the General Assembly months later that seals the UN’s fate like the League of Nations did to itself over Abyssinia.
After all the hand-wringing over Rwanda, the Congo and Sudan that’s a fairly pitiful showing when the chemical weapons ban is violated by an act of democidal massacre. And what of the non-proliferation issue? I’m old enough to remember when that was the unifying cause among the non-communist Left worldwide. Today, not so much apparently.
“And what of the non-proliferation issue? I’m old enough to remember when that was the unifying cause among the non-communist Left worldwide. Today, not so much apparently.”
The constant anxiety our generation felt every day about being nuked, sometimes spoken openly, sometimes unconsciously no longer registers in society at large. I can still remember the heavy psychological weight of that and among some of my friends the occasional expression of hopelessness for the future.
As a society we seem to have forgotten that along with a few points about the Vietnam conflict. Apparently the US must repeat some of its errors every 40 years or so.
Ultimately, isn’t history going to judge this by whether Assad is thrown from power or he hands power off to one of his children?
I mean, look at Saddam. Did he use chemical weapons and get away with it? In 1988 and 1991, he did. But then he was beheaded anyway, basically because his prior WMD use made a case for war 12-15 years later. Wasn’t that part of his conviction, too?
I’m suggesting that the US no longer is granted the moral high ground on making human rights arguments to cover more pragmatic national interests. And that has very little to do with my preferences of the way it should be. China and Russia are no more cynical than the US vetoes in favor of Israel’s 46-year-long violation of the Geneva Conventions in the occupied territories.
The situation of the UN today is more difficult in part because the US for so long used it as a sort of international Good Housekeeping seal of approval for its wars. And cover for covert operations. The result is that UN Blue Helmets and UN aid missions have come under attack from folks distrustful that it is an honest broker and honest actor.
Avoiding getting hit with a $1.5 million cruise missile is not the same as getting a free pass. There are diplomatic channels still open even the face of China, Russia, and the Arab League refusing to rubber-stamp a US military attack on an ally.
The surest way of eliminating a future chemical weapons attack in Syria is to have a political settlement of the civil war. That is on about the same scale of delusion as the idea that limited US military action will deter the Assad regime in further chemical attacks. And both of those are much less delusional than the immediate optimal solution–having a complete inspection of all parties in the conflict for chemical weapons.
A lot has changed in the world since the Rwanda genocide. For one thing, the International Criminal Court has been established and has handled several dozen cases, including those of the Gadhafi regime. In a lot of cases, regime change in countries has resulted in trials of perpetrators of war crimes. This was the case in Rwanda, where a million refugees were brought before the Gacaca Court in an effort over 15 years to hold the perpertrators accountable and exonerate those who did not commit war crimes.
Both Slobodan Milosevich and Radavan Karadich have been brought to the ICC for their participation in war crimes.
Just this year, the ICC began investigating particular participants in the massacres in Darfur. And paramilitary crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The UN inspectors have evidence and are returning to run it through chemical labs. Any trial requires definitive evidence and testimony. The question is whether the US will turn over its evidence to the ICC or hide behind the “sources and methods” exclusion.
The is much more likelihood of Bashar Assad getting more than a sternly worded letter today than there was twenty years ago.
If the non-communist Left worldwide is not a activist about those places anymore it is because something has begun to be done. The non-communist Left currently is focused on rolling back two misplaced policies: the global war on terror and economic austerity. And on preparing to deal with inaction on global warming.
Of course, regarding the International Criminal Court, the United States shot itself in the foot a decade ago in order to be able to start wars, kidnap and render, and torture with impunity. Any attempt of the US to regain the moral high ground will require ratification of the Treaty of Rome and implementation of its responsibilities under that treaty.
Very well said.
I actually agree with much of what you say, especially your assessment of the surest way of eliminating a future chemical weapons attack in Syria. And the immediate challenges facing the non-communist Left.
But if seems to me that if we become obstacles to the cause of non-proliferation we will come to regret it; probably sooner than later. And if past misapplication of US power convinces us that genuinely occupying the “moral high ground on making human rights arguments” is not worth doing than we have ceded a powerful historical quality which our predecessors enjoyed.
In navigating the global crises facing the planet it has always struck me that a well-governed United States could have a significant and positive role.
On the other hand, if we bomb Syria for 48 hours, no one will remember in a year, just like Libya. Because everyone saying “We can’t afford another Middle Eastern war like Iraq and Afghanistan.” has already forgotten our participation in Libya, which was more substantial than anything we are planning in Syria.
And since any UN action is being blocked by China and Russia, acting without the consent of the Dictator’s Benevolence Association would reinforce the idea that the US simply will not allow the use of NBC weapons.
Finally, Britain’s refusal to join in is more about the fragile coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems that it is about “the case”.
If you insist on wasting your time on this have at it. But please don’t assign your lack of belief to the world in general. Most of the world understands that the Assad regime did the deed. They don’t like the idea of intervention, but they understand who did the deed.
One massive difference between Syria 2013 and Iraq 2002 and whatever other case you care to dig up is this. The gassing happened. It did. It honest-to-God did.
Now either magic was involved, or the people in the area who were capable of doing this were the people who did this. Those are your choices remaining. Of the people in the area, only the Assad regime was capable of doing this.
Either the opposition decided to gas their own parents, cousins, neighbors and children using some magically-supplied chem weapons, the use of which escaped detection by every intel service on Earth.
OR
The regime with a history of slaughtering its own rebellious citizens and which possesses chem weapon capability and which was observed raining rockets down on the gassed area did it.
I for one am going to move on to the crux of the matter – what should be done in the wake of this knowledge?
We know that the Japanese military were responsible for the sarin subway attacks because Aum Shinrikyo didn’t have rocket capability.
Simple logic, folk. You don’t need a rocket to deploy sarin. In fact, if you control an area being shelled, you can deploy it while your enemy shells it.
Rocket hulks were not found in the Japanese subways.
Perhaps they were vanished by the same magic which is used today to offer Assad excuses.
Let’s move on. The side with the ability to do it and the history of doing it is the party which did it.
Okay, because rocket hulls weren’t found in the Tokyo subways where sarin was deployed, therefore rockets must have been used to deliver sarin in Syria.
Impeccable logic, Quicklund.
I’ll try to explain this again. Assad’s forces have fired lots of rockets. The rebels have also fired lots of rockets. They weren’t all filled with poison gas. In fact, we haven’t gotten any proof that any rockets with sarin gas were fired. Plus, we know that sarin gas can be deployed in many different ways without rockets. (Tokyo, as you have figured out.)
There have been reports of rebel forces with sarin gas. Granted, these reports haven’t been featured in Western news stories. You may have never seen them. WIth Google, it’s never too late. Feel free to do further research.
1.) There is not at this point proof that Assad attacked the neighborhood with sarin gas.
2.) The military objective of drawing in US airpower against Assad is more compelling than the military objective of killing women and children with poison gas fifteen kilometers away from the UN inspectors’ hotel.
3.) If, in fact, the US has a recording of people in Assad’s command chain discussing this, then by all means release it and let the world judge its authenticity. We know that the same okey-doke was used in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
4.) There is the question as to how this helps anything besides showing the US’s contempt for Assad, but I’m sure he’s sussed this out already. Too little damage and Assad survives another day to flip off Obama. Too much and al Qaeda gets to massacre all the Christians and Alawites when they win.
There are no good choices here for America. Maybe if there were medical students there. Or babies being thrown from incubators. Or soldiers catching babies on their bayonets. Or maybe Assad could invade Manhattan.
It is a characteristing of consiracy theroies that any and I mean any level of proof can be countered by more imaginatings. So I am not going to waste more of my time reading yours.
The facts on the ground offer conclusive proof the Assad regime is responsible. Full stop. The end.
The questions now all revolve around what if anything should be done in response. If you want to join that conversation, fine. If you want to continue to fantasize about fanciful conspiracies I will not indulge you with wasting my time on them.
I suggest you Go Orange where your conspiracy musings will be warmly embraced.
Here’s the problem. I trust Obama and Kerry to be presenting based on the information that they have. I even trust them to have pushed back with some degree of skepticism.
But I do not trust those who are lower in the chain of command to provide competent or accurate information, given the institutional politics and loyalties of the intelligence community and military are not automatically aligned with the President’s approach to foreign policy. Too folks still there were the “Yes” men and women that Bush and Cheney depended on and who helped fit the facts to the policy.
And too much of Obama’s policy to date has fit within the old PNAC “seven nations” framework.
We understand how Obama and Generals McChrystal and Petraeus contended over the surge–the President demanding practical details and assurances, the generals providing vague PowerPoint presentations.
In addition, the communications team both at the White House and at the State Department are abysmally incompetent. Obama never has had a competent team at the White House and State has not recovered from the loss of P. J. Crowley.
The US declassified statement to Congress and the parallel (read the text) UK declassified statement to Parliament were pathetic shows of assertion and parsing, deliberate obfuscation, and empty rhetorical bombast.
My hope is that this miserable exercise brings down the current British cabinet.
May it be that our conversations be driven by doors that Obama is cracking open; pundits and public sorting out their positions on what information is laid out; Rep’s unable to see more than an opportunity to impeach Obama should he go it alone; Dems’ icy fear that Obama will fall into the trap; Putin and Iran twisting their knives; the Jordanians and Israeli’s delving into insider intelligence work; 911 anniversary coming up and AQ Iraq/Syria looking at strikes that dissolved a couple of weeks ago but now see an opportunity.
And Obama waits. His inner circle lays out the options, the moral issues, the strategies but he pulls a Steve Jobs and tells them to go back and make it better. I just have a whiff that he’s not so much deciding how he will strike, but instead an element of Libya where he’s forcing the hands of allies to put their shoulders to the decision itself.
And now we know he’s going to force Congress to take a stand, not just posture from the grandstand.
The empirical test of this hypothesis is:
The kind of attack the administration has suggested is limited and restricted to targets among Assad’s military.
100% certainty about which party released the chemical weapons on the civilians of Ghouta just doesn’t matter. That is already history. Nothing will bring those dead children back. There is nothing within US power that would penalize the guilty party adequately while managing to avoid creating a worse situation.
What matters is the future containment and discouragement on the use of chemical weapons. What matters is to continue the decades of international collaboration on non-proliferation agreements for chemical and other weapons. Due to their inherent nature chemical weapons are particularly effective against civilian populations and in some ways they are also easier to move across borders. It turns out many stockpiles in the world are relatively insecure and at risk of getting into the hands of militants of all stripes. If other dictators perceive that chemical weapons work for Assad, what will their attitude about producing and using them be? The goal is not to discourage Assad from using these weapons, rather to discourage everyone globally from thinking seriously about making, spreading and using them (which obviously includes the rebels and Assad).
The evidence against Assad’s forces is good enough. Fire away when the UN inspectors are safe.
The Russians, Chinese, Iranians and a few others will all bellow out their displeasure. Many Arab nations will criticize the US and be secretly happy about the attack. No one is going to cry for Assad. After two days of that the anticlimax that follows is going to be stunning. Within 4 days everyone in the States will be talking again about that girl who played Mona Dakota (or whoever).
They haven’t come close to satisfying their own military leaders that they have made their case.