War Crime at Khan Shaykhun

In certain circles, it has become almost fashionable to defend the Bashar al-Asad regime; oddly in the US the temptation seems to seduce not only the ideological right but also the ideological left. Outside of Syria's Russian, Iranian, and Hizbullah enablers, it is time for the scales to fall from their eyes. The chemical weapons attack on the town of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province.

It is true that the Syrian regime denies it was behind the attack and claims it is a "false flag"operation by the opposition. Notwithstanding the fact that witnesses said the attack was delivered by a Sukhoi Su-22 with Arabic markings. The only air forces in Syria flying Su-22s are Syria's and Russia's, and I doubt the Russians would do the dirty work themselves.

The death toll is said to be somewhere in the 80s, including at least 25 children. Most accounts say the gas was Sarin, but those are preliminary reads, and chlorine, which Syria also has used.an have similar symptoms.

But wait! Didn't Syria agree in 2013 to surrender all its chemical weapons? Well, yes, it did.

The world has responded as usual, with massive denunciations. (Though the US Trump Administration said it was the result of President Obama's failure to carry through on his "red line" threats in 2013, which it characterized as weakness, but it offered no prospect of strong action now.

Six years of war in Syria has produced nearly five million external refugees and over six million internally displaced persons. This is a humanitarian disaster of historic proportions. The Asad regime is not solely responsible, but an internationally recognized government systematically gassing its own people deserves no international tolerance.

I am not advocating American boots on the ground, since that almost always backfires, but instead of Russia and some in this country defending Asad, it is time to brand this regime a pariah like North Korea, and treat it as the renegade it has become. If the world cannot find a way, or the will, to stop the atrocities, it should end any pretense of toleration. My language may offend, but the far greater offense is Asad's; this is fucking barbarism, and it is time to call it by its proper name.

Avner Cohen on Israel and Chemical Weapons

A few days ago I noted the growing discussion of Israel's chemical weapons capabilities. Avner Cohen, best known for his work on Israel's nuclear program and Shane Mason now weigh in at Foreign Affairs, arguing that Israel's policy of "ambiguity" on nuclear and other WMD issues may be outmoded. An excerpt:

Although the attempt to bring Israel into the debate stems from clear political motivations, it also highlights the uncomfortable, indeed problematic, nature of Israel’s evasion on all matters relating to WMD. Israel’s refusal to acknowledge its chemical weapons program only further underscores what has been clear for some time: ambiguity on WMD has become a political burden for Israel, particularly as it tries to rally the world behind preventing a nuclear Iran. Its unwillingness to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention -- a stance it takes largely for the sake of opacity, since it has no use for chemical weapons whatsoever -- undermines its security interests and intensifies its international isolation.

Although neither confirmed nor denied by the Israeli government, it is widely presumed that, at one time in its history, Israel possessed chemical weapons. Israel likely launched its chemical weapons program in its first decade after independence in 1948, prior to its nuclear program, in an era when Israeli leaders believed their country’s survival was in peril. At the time, chemical weapons were Israel’s weapons of last resort. The recently discovered 1983 CIA documents published in Foreign Policy, which claim that Israel had an active chemical weapons program, may refer to the last residues of such a program. Today, however, Israel does not have an active chemical weapons arsenal (one that could quickly be made operational and deployable for battlefield use) and has not had one for decades.

 And later:

It is time for Israel to revisit its old-fashioned chemical weapons ambiguity. In light of the Assad regime’s use of the weapons, and with the international community intensely focused on their prohibition, Israel’s past program and its reluctance to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention have become a strategic, diplomatic, and military burden -- both for Israel and its most important ally, the United States. By failing to ratify a convention banning a weapon it does not need, Israel finds itself in the company of Angola, Egypt, Myanmar (also known as Burma), North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria -- a motley crew of pariah and failed states with which it would certainly like to avoid association.

Israel's Chemical and Biological Weapons Capabilities

For the first time in the debate over Syria's apparent use of chemical weapons, some discussion of Israel's capabilities in chemical and biological weapons has been heard. The Times of Israel has run a detailed piece by Mitch Ginsburg, "‘Should there be a need’: The inside story of Israel’s chemical and biological arsenal."

And there was this piece last week at Foreign Policy by Matthew M. Aid, "Exclusive: Does Israel Have Chemical Weapons Too? "  The report is based on a previously classified CIA estimate and contains previously undisclosed details, but it is hardly news that much of the intelligence community has long believed Israel has both chemical and biological capabilities, or the capacity to achieve them in short order. The article suggests the development of the capability was in response to Egypt's use of chemical weapons in the Yemen civil war.

Israel signed, but did not yet ratify, the Chemical Weapons Convention. It has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It's widely believed other countries in the region also have, or have had, CBW capabilities. Now that Syria has offered to sign and ratify the Convention, pressure may build for similar action by other regional countries.

A Range of Reactions on Syria, Mine and Others'

When I broke off blogging for the Labor Day Weekend, the US seemed locked and loaded for a strike on Syria, but on Saturday we learned that any action will be deferred until Congress can approve. I've generally been supportive of the Administration's caution on Syria, but in a situation in which there are no good options, I fear this may be the worst. It gives the Syrian regime a respite and an opportunity to disperse targets and move civilians onto potential target sites, and it assures a public debate at a time when public opinion is clearly hostile toward American action. Unless the intention is, actually, to avoid action by hoping Congress blocks it, it seems the worst of all possible approaches. The limits of a one-time, surgical, cruise and standoff missiles-only strike are considerable to begin with; such a strike's effectiveness in these circumstances is likely to be further reduced.

Admittedly, it is refreshing to see a US President defer in this way to Constitutional procedures (though I noticed that Obama cited the Constitution, not the War Powers Act of 1973, which every president for 40 years has claimed is unconstitutional but which has never been fully challenged in the courts). But why wait until the last moment to do so?

Some worthy reads on multiple sides of the issue, by people who know the subject well:

Fred Hof for The Atlantic Council, "A Mystifying Lack of US Preparedness." He calls the decision "constitutionally sound, but strategically appalling."

Murhaf Jouejati for Al-Monitor: "US Military Force Could Promote Diplomacy in Syria."

Gary Sick: "Calibrating the Attack on Syria." A good statement of the contradictory pressures faced in reaching any decision on this complex issue.

The International Crisis Group: "Syria Statement." A nuanced approach emphasizing the need for a diplomatic breakthrough on Syria whether or not a strike takes place.

As I said, all of these views deserve attention. Much more than the usual uninformed talking heads on television. But, purely for the record, some unusual folks are expressing skepticism about intervention, including John Bolton who, I thought, never met a war he didn't like, and even Donald Rumsfeld, of all people. The fact that those two are against it is a fairly strong argument for it, but at this point the whole issue of what to do and how and when to do it is so muddled that the coming debate could go in almost any direction.

Le Monde on Witnessing Chemical Weapons; NPR on Whether Rebels Could Be Responsible

As we wait for the US to provide evidence that the Asad regime is responsible for the use of chemicals in Syria, here's an eyewitness report from Le Monde that claims to have witnessed such a use.

That seems to be fairly conclusive, and most have dismissed Syrian government claims that it was the rebels who used the weapons. But to give the Devil's Advocate an argument, NPR addresses the question "Is it Possible the Syrian Rebels (Not Assad) Used Chemical Weapons?"  I'm not endorsing the idea, merely pointing to the article.

Syria: Is the US Considering an Airstrike?

Most of the commentary in Washington is increasingly questioning the US' lack of response to the claimed atrocities and use of chemical warfare by Syria. But some are suggesting that this may be a tactic while preparing for a possible airstrike. Certainly there are reports the Pentagon is working on strike packages (story behind a paywall), and I doubt the US will act alone or without unmistakeable evidence of what happened and who is responsible. Russia is in denial (or perhaps, in collusion).

It goes without saying that a few airstrikes or cruise missile barrages can provide a certain amount of satisfaction when one is watching a country in full collapse, enormous refugee flows and what may prove to be one of the worst use of nerve agents or other weapons in recent history, but it is also still sound military doctrine not to take precipitate action unless there is some clear cut strategy, including an achievable objective, in sight. If one can degrade the regime's ability to use chemical agents against its own people, that may justify a few strikes. But if one expects to bomb Asad into a regime change, they haven't been paying attention. That would take a much greater level of commitment than I think US opinion is prepared for. Can it be done? Syria has already shown it is not Libya; this regime has deeper roots, though sectarian-based, and the position of Russia is an obstacle not to be dismissed. (And the Russians are alleging the claims were prepared in advance, thus they see them as fabricated).

It seems clear thousands have been affected. If it is truly chemical use and the Asad regime is behind it,  then the world should not stand idly by. But it needs to consider what action will have the most effect in actually preventing a recurrence.

Zunes on the US Track Record on Chemical Weapons in the Mideast

Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco has a column at Foreign Policy in Focus on "The US and Chemical Weapons: No Leg to Stand On," which lays out the track record of US policy, which is (unsurprisingly) inconsistent. Noting that chemical weapons have been used on a number of occasions (Britain in Iraq in 1920, Egypt in Yemen, Iraq against Iran) and that the US has never criticized the Egyptian or Israeli chemical weapons programs, he makes an important point. I would only add that while it may look hypocritical, the fact that the US has looked the other way in the past does not necessarily mean it should not condemn use of chemical weapons now; it just undercuts our credibility. And saying we should condemn it does not mean I'm advocating intervention; that is really a separate issue.

The Chemical Issue: Turning Point in Syria?

Considering the ambiguities of the evidence so far, the controversy over allegations that chemical weapons were used in Syria, much of the political posturing seems premature. The issue came up on President Obama's first day in Israel, with the Israelis saying they are convinced that chemical weapons were used. The trouble is, there isn't much evidence.

Though most Western reporting has focused on the assumption that the Asad regime was behind the alleged chemical use, it was the Asad regime that first reported the claim, blaming rebel forces. The most publicized video also shows victims in a government hospital. Now each side is blaming the other, but why would the regime have made the first charge? Possibly to justify a retaliatory use?

But what chemical weapon was allegedly used? Questions are being asked but not really answered. The video shows people in a hospital in masks, and some on respirators, and complaining of pain in the chest. But there is no visible burning of the skin as many chemical weapons would produce, and the results do not look like highly lethal nerve agents were used.

The coincidence of these allegations with the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, launched to stop weapons of mass destruction that weren't present, should be an added reason for caution in such an ambiguous situation.

The recent rebel victory in the city of Raqqa,  giving them control of their first major city and first full province (though they control much of Idlib province as well), (see also here), could be seen as s turning point for the war, and the regime could be feeling cornered and ready to use chemical weapons. But the evidence for that is by no means in.

Those Syrian Sarin Reports

All the reports suggesting that the Syrian government may be preparing Sarin for use against its own people are alarming, The fact that the US and the UN appear to deem the reports credible means the danger should be taken seriously. I am generally cautious about reports coming out of Syria; there are too many competing factions, producing propaganda of their own, and too many videos of uncertain provenance being posted to social media with little ability to verify the source. The recent AP "Iranian nuclear plan" fiasco is a reminder that false information (in that case, leaking a graph that did not show scientifically what it claimed to) can easily be reported around the without proper verification.

What the US has said so far is that there is evidence Syria is bringing together the chemicals needed to manufacture Sarin, which is a binary weapon. There is no doubt that Syria possesses a sophisticated binary chemical weapons capability; this is not a  case of an alleged capability like WMD in Iraq in 2003. The fact that the US has been so adverse to open intervention up to now suggests the alarm has some justification, though that does not mean that some caution is not in order.

Despite stern warnings from the international community, it is far from clear that this would deter the beleaguered regime once it decides it has no alternative but to use Sarin against its own people. That would mean the regime is prepared to bring the building crashing down on its own head: that the Alawite community is prepared to go down fighting even if it carves a space for itself in the annals of genocide.

But if the threat is real. one hopes some thought is being given to how (other than verbal warnings) to deter the actual use of such weapons in this already horrific war.