US President Barack Obama has moved a step closer towards direct intervention in Syria with his statement that there is now evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria’s civil war. Obama has previously said the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” that, if crossed, would trigger US intervention.
However, Obama has said it is not yet absolutely clear who was responsible for the use of the chemical weapons, and that it is critical to clarify this point so as to ensure international support for US intervention. His caution reflects growing concern over both the mounting death toll within Syria as well as the inexorable drawing in to the conflict of outside forces, in particular Lebanon’s heavily armed Shiite militia Hezbollah.
Both the Bashar al-Assad government and the Syrian opposition claim chemical weapons have been used in the conflict, as recently as last Sunday. This supports earlier Israeli claims chemical weapons were being used in the Syrian conflict. There has been a high level of reluctance to take such claims on face value, however, given the disrepute of similar claims that rationalised the start of the Iraq War. Even if it can be established who has used chemical weapons — thought to be the nerve gas Sarin — it is not yet clear what form intervention might take, much less the shape of international reactions to such an intervention.
With the US public weary over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it is unlikely that the US would commit ground troops to Syria. A belligerent response from Syrian ally Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran, are also factors against a ground intervention.
However, a bombing campaign and related air cover, as in Libya in 2011 and in Yugoslavia in 1999, have been shown to be effective in either changing the course of a ground war or compelling a government into submission. With the Assad regime only slowly losing ground in its now two-year-old civil war, such an intervention would be likely to tip the outcome against his government forces.
One factor complicating of any hastening of the fall of the Assad regime is that Syrian opposition forces are now deeply divided. The Free Syrian Army is supported by the US and its European allies, and the explicitly al-Qaeda-affiliated Al Nusra Front is supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Although it wants the Assad regime to go, the US and its allies are deeply opposed to an Al Nusra takeover of Syria. A civil war between Al Nusra and the FSA is also seen as increasingly likely following the fall of the Assad regime.
On-ground intervention by Hezbollah, which is supported by Iran, has led Al Nusra leaders to say that, following the fall of the Assad regime, Hezbollah’s destruction will be the next priority. Contemplating a possible Al Nusra takeover in Syria and a widening of the war into Lebanon and possibly Iran, the US is focusing on how its increasingly likely intervention could shape Syria’s highly contentious future.
*Professor Damien Kingsbury is director of the Centre for Citizenship, Development and Human Rights at Deakin University
the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, an armed group with clear ties to al quaeda were armed, trained and funded by NATO in order to depose their previous puppet gaddafi when he outlived his usefulness. these rebels had clear access to libya’s chemical weapons and are now known to be assisting the al quaeda linked groups (who are also armed and trained by NATO esp. turkey). it’s more than reasonable to assume that terrorists without concern for life would use chemical weapons and blame it on the syrian regime in order to bring forth international intervention (and speed up the progress to ethnic cleansing of syria and installation of a sunni/salafist regime). ask yourselves who has the most to gain by using these WMD’s? assad, who knows he will be defeated almost surely if he was to use it, or terrorists who have no concern for who dies and who know, with the full propaganda machine of western media, will be able to blame the syrian regime and speed up their path to victory?
it’s also not likely sarin, at least according to the description of symptoms by various stakeholders.
This article poses as many questions as it provides answers. As Julie Birchwood points out it is far from clear who used chemical weapons if indeed they were used. The US intelligence agencies report on the issue was extremely careful to avoid definitive conclusions.
Even if they were used, and used by the Assad regime, that would not constitute a reason for overt military intervention by outside forces. Something that Professor Kingsbury consistently fails to acknowledge is that there is actually a legal framework for military intervention and the pre-condiitons have manifestly not been met.
Also, as JB points out, the so-called rebels are largely foreign sourced, as well as financed, armed and supplied by foreign governments including the UK, US, Saudi arabia and others. One way to bring about a rapid conclusion to this war would be for foreign governments to stop their meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. That would be too much to expect given the history of the western powers in using islamic fundamentalists when it suits them to wage their proxy wars.
I would also question the assumption that the terrorists are winning. Reports from independent sources within Iraq, including most recently Robert Fisk, suggest that the Syrian Army is steadily regaining lost ground. What is significant but ignored by the western presstitutes is that in the areas the rebels do hold they haver introduced the kind of medieval strict Islamic law the western democracies supposedly decry. Even the NY Times felt compelled to point out the bitter irony of what the west is supposedly supporting and the realities on the ground.
Given the almost complete inability to see beyond perceived narrow self-interest one has no confidence that western governments will adopt policies other than those that will lead to the terrible destruction of yet another sovereign state; the installation of fundamentalist regimes; and a possible wider war involving Russia, Iran, Lebanon and inevitably Israel.
Like there were WMD in Iraq, I dare say. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on US.
Ditto to Mike Smith. The US has form in pressing a case and in providing what can loosely be referred to as ‘evidence’.