REUTERS/Obeida Al Naimi
A damaged vehicle is seen after shelling by forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo's district of Bustan Al Qasr August 7, 2012.
In March 2003, Donald Rumsfeld assured the nation that we knew where Iraq was hiding its Weapons of Mass Destruction. By October 2004, the CIA reported that in fact, at the time of the American invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein did not possess WMD. While you may think the CIA’s ‘Duelfer Report’ would definitively clear up the matter once and for all, a recent Dartmouth University poll revealed that a whopping 63% of Republican respondents still maintain that Iraq had WMD. As the conflicts that have arisen from the Arab Spring continue to restructure our relationship to the region, the credibility squandered by the Bush administration complicate President Obama’s consideration of military options.
So, when U.S. officials recently confirmed that Syria relocated its chemical weapons stockpile in the midst of a rapidly degrading conflict which has already claimed nearly 20,000 lives, the specter of WMD once again threatened to take over the narrative. It’s not news that Damascus possesses a WMD stockpile; in fact, it is believed to be quite vast. By refusing to sign the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, Bashar al-Assad signaled that he never promised to fight fairly. The question of WMD comes in the midst of heightened assaults against the Assad regime; the last weeks saw the Syrian Defense Minister, along with Assad’s own brother-in-law, killed in a suicide attack within Damascus. This week, the Prime Minister has defected with his family.
NBC’s Chief Foreign Correspondent, Richard Engel, contends that Syria’s WMD should always have been part of the discussion, “We’ve been choosing to ignore it because it’s complicated, and it’s an election year. But the Assad regime is facing what could be imminent destruction, and this is the time when using chemical weapons becomes a real possibility.”
Indeed, military intervention in a foreign conflict this close to a presidential election is not an attractive option for Obama, but is WMD as a justification for intervention a nonstarter in any case? Can the American public ever get behind removing the threat of WMD as a reason for war again? Just this week, the Syrian regime clarified that it has no plans to use chemical weapons against its own population, but would use them against “external aggression;” a declaration that seems neither trustworthy nor comforting.
There's also the possibility that WMD, and the way they affect the international response to the crisis in Syria, could have affect on nuclear ambitions in the region. As Wired’s Kris Alexander sums up:
“Regimes seek WMDs for multiple reasons, but the common thread is a deterrent against outside attack. Syrian WMDs create a paradox for the international community looking to stem the spread of WMDs. If the West stays out of Syria, this reinforces the perceived deterrent value of WMDs. This will further fuel the nuclear ambitions of Syria’s ally Iran. However, the reverse scenario is also true. If the West intervenes against Assad and he is forced out of power, this could make nuclear weapons more attractive as well. If chem/bio weapons didn’t deter aggression, then nuclear weapons might.”
On the question of whether the U.S. may be hesitant to react to a WMD situation in Syria because of some collective embarrassment over Iraq, Engel disagrees, “If the U.S. thought that Syria might use its WMDs, we wouldn’t hesitate to act. You don’t see the U.S. drumming this up because it doesn't want to get unilaterally involved, we’d rather have the uprising continue, or a third party like Turkey intervene.” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little recently stated, “The Syrian regime is already responsible for unacceptable levels of deplorable violence against the Syrian population, and they should not think one iota about using chemical weapons.”
As a country, we’ve been here before; the difference with Syria is that the Assad regime is transparent regarding its possession of WMD as observers struggle to interpret his signals.
As the U.S. continues to define the conditions, or lack thereof, of its involvement in Syria, it will be important to consider the American public’s reaction to Syria’s WMD, and whether or not we can separate the Syrian conflict from our own internal one.
Leave a Comment:
"Fight fairly"? Who is to give lessons in fighting fairly, the US? Drone warfare, depleted uranium, Special Ops and on and on? Give us a break, Western press!
It's important to remember that one's political enemies, including vicious tyrannical regimes, are largely rational human beings like the rest of us.
Imagine you're, say, Iran. You look around you and see: Iraq had no nukes, got invaded, "regime change" followed. North Korea made sure everyone knows they have nukes: nobody even thinks of invading them and changing the regime. Now, what would you do? - So yes, it's a disaster to allow them nuclear weapons (though I think we're delusional if we think we can stop them if they are determined to have them; topic for separate discussion). But it's perfectly clear why they want them; has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist religious regime, as such.
Now back to Syria. Why have WMDs? Not to use in a conventional conflict; they were not used in 1967, 1973 or 1982 in wars against Israel, nor in skirmishes with Turkey. You keep them in store as a Doomsday Weapon: to make sure no neighbour gets the idea to invade Syria, which is weaker than most its neighbours (Israel, Turkey, Iran, in the past also Iraq) in terms of conventional military power and topple the regime.
A simple rational calculus. Yes, these weapons are horrible and I wish they never existed, or at least that they're all destroyed tomorrow morning. But here in the real world, we need to understand international politics to make the right choices. The idea that having WMDs, in itself, is casus belli or sufficient cause for the US (or any other country) to invade, is ludicrous. Do people have any idea how many countries have them?
Good point Hsun-Tsu. That is probably why when given the chance, Hussein never openly denied that he had WMD - he wanted any and all of his present and future enemies to think he did. And people forget that in the past he actually had and used WMD on the Kurds in his own country. One of his military cronies even earned the nickname "Chemical Ali" for just that reason.
What I find interesting about Syria is there isn't even a hint of enforcing a no-fly zone like in Libya. Syria is using warplanes against the rebels just like Libya started to do before the no fly restriction. I think it is because of a couple of reasons:
1. They have a better air force and military in general than Libya.
2. They have Russia and Iran as "allies".
Yes, Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were a bunch of merciless butchers, and using chemical weapons against civilians was especially heinous. The Assad regime is just as ruthless; it's a strategic, not moral, decision for them not to use chemical weapons on the rebals (yet?).
It's worth remembering that Syria has very advanced Russian anti-aircraft weaponry, considerably upgraded after some unknown country (hah) bombed their nuclear facility in 2009. Nothing the US can't handle, but not trivial, and there are still Russian technicians, trainers, etc., on the ground, which the US certainly cannot afford to injure or kill. Iran being an ally is not a major factor, but Russia sees Syria as its back yard, much as they do Georgia (remember that? the Georgians won't forget for a while), and will not brook Western interference, that's a sad fact.
The US should stay out of it. There are countries that are more directly threatened that should get involved. If there are Americans who want to to fight, by all means join the rebels and fight for your convictions.