Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[davidbfpo]

Given the mixed, even contrary reporting on Syrian chemical weapons I am not sure what is going on.

Sometimes I suspect it is a "fig leaf" for enhancing Western diplomacy and reducing the leverage China, Iran and Russia have. You can almost hear the official statement "We had to act, Bashir was about to use CW"; maybe even a spectacular UN presentation?

Enduring America notes:

on chemical weapons, Lavrov suggested that Assad would not use them, and this would be a "red line" for Russia as well:

“For us, any violations of international agreements in this area are unacceptable," Lavrov stressed.

Link:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...surge-but.html

Shashank Joshi questions whether CW is useful; it is July 2012 and may have been posted before:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...ons-effective/

I have not been following Syria closely and had missed this:

For starters, the fall of Deir Ez Zor will free up large waves of (largely Iraqi) insurgents to attack to the north....Furthermore, the sudden emergence of large numbers of Iraqi fighters, many of them radical, in the east is concerning

Yes Bashir's regime is getting more ruthless, notably in using air power in urban areas; such as a MIG-23:http://theaviationist.com/2012/12/05.../#.UMB5zuTtT0f

There are also reports of Grad rockets being used; when will we see Scud SSM being used?

[AdamG]

The West is aware that its’ claims about the threat from the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons does not stand up to scrutiny, the Russian government has said.

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...#ixzz2EHQ1baVx

The Russian Foreign Ministry has told its NATO partners that it hopes there will be no attempts at military intervention in Syria.

Lavrov advanced Russia’s firm position on Syria after a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on Tuesday.

"We hope there will be no foreign interference," he said.

http://rt.com/politics/syria-russia-...to-lavrov-314/

[davidbfpo]

By Shashank Joshi

A round-up of where we stand on Syrian chemical weapons, and who is claiming what:

Link:http://shashankjoshi.wordpress.com/2...cal-crescendo/

Not much variation in the reporting, clearly based on official briefings.

He also reports via Twitter that Czech CW defence troops are advising the Jordanians:http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/czech...syrian-threat/

IIRC the Czech military as part of NATO took responsibility for CW defence and their specialised vehicles dominated the market awhile ago.

[davidbfpo]

A Turkish student @ Kings London comments, drawing upon the known Soviet experience with CW:http://turkeywonk.wordpress.com/2012...ducated-guess/

[AdamG]

The German government said Thursday it had approved participation in a NATO mission to deploy Patriot missiles to help member state Turkey defend its border against Syria and will send up to 400 troops.

http://www.thelocal.de/national/2012...l#.UMDO13e-XJZ

I think I've seen this movie before...

[davidbfpo]

From FP one of the better comments on the situation; the title being 'Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons; And why you should still be worried':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...pons?page=full

Charles Blair ends with:

Were chemical agents to fall into the hands of armed factions battling for control of the nation, the implications would be stark and ominous. So, the United States is right to worry about Syria's chemical weapons -- it may just be worried about them for the wrong reason.

He does say earlier:

The good news is that few terrorist groups would actually be able to use any [chemical] materials they acquired.

[AdamG]

'Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons"

File under "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." - General John Sedgwick, 09 May 1864