Syria under Bashir Assad: crumbling now?

[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]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

'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

[AdamG]

INSIGHT: How Would Assad Use Chemical Weapons?

The regime could use chemical weapons in a variety of ways, from a limited or demonstration attack to large-scale offensive or defensive use to fundamentally change the military situation. At present, reports that the regime is weaponizing relatively small quantities of agent suggest the former. Limited CW use could be controlled better in terms of effects and visibility. The regime might also find it easier to explain away small-scale strikes as the work of “terrorists” or as a justifiable response to the military situation and the threat to the country.

Read more at Middle East Voices: http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/...#ixzz2EVZojZ2l

[AdamG]

Western intelligence agencies observed Syrian units making advanced preparations for the potential use of chemical weapons, including loading trucks with ready-to-use bombs and shells, prompting President Obama last week to warn Syria against using the banned munitions, according to Western and Middle Eastern officials.

Soldiers at one Syrian base were monitored mixing precursors for chemical weapons and taking other steps to ready the lethal munitions for battlefield use, the officials said. It was the first hard evidence that Syria was moving toward possible activation of its vast arsenal of chemical weapons, which includes nerve gas and other poisons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...532_story.html

[davidbfpo]

A week ago I posted:

when will we see Scud SSM being used?

Yesterday in my catching up on the news I noted a report that Scuds had been launched from Damascus to hit targets to the north (sorry lost link, probably FP).

Given local sensitivities around Scuds I wonder if Syria reassures Israel in particular that a launch will occur and indicate the target area?

[davidbfpo]

A dissenting article in The Independent by Patrick Cockburn, that set off a flurry of critical Tweets about his accusation that the media were giving a slanted view of what was happening. The bigger story was how a YouTube video was strengthening the Bashir regime; the video is not linked, no doubt due to being horrific.

Link:http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...r-8420309.html

[davidbfpo]

Russian military advisers are manning some of Syria's more sophisticated air defences – something that would complicate any future US-led intervention...The advisers have been deployed with new surface-to-air systems and upgrades of old systems, which Moscow has supplied to the Assad regime since the Syrian revolution broke out 21 months ago.

(Later) The upgrades were supplied by Moscow, which sees them as a bulwark against western-imposed regime change and protection of a longstanding investment in Syria. The country includes Russia's biggest electronic eavesdropping post outside its territory, in Latakia, and its toehold on the Mediterranean, a small naval base at Tartus.

Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...nce?CMP=twt_fd

Some interesting points, I'm puzzled that no mention IIRC has been made of the ELINT post before. Given the reported lack of regime manpower aqnd apparent desperation one wonders if the air defence network is fully manned.

[davidbfpo]

Possibly the first use of chemical weapons @ Homs, on Sunday; hat tip to Enduring America:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...on-sunday.html

A private, US analytical company concluded:

While by no means certain and harkening back to caveats mentioned earlier, information on hand suggests that the chemical agent used to kill 7 in Homs, Syria, was likely Chlorine Gas, Cyanogen Chloride (CK) or Phosgene Gas (CG). This is a preliminary estimate that will likely change as more evidence comes in.

Full report:http://www.osen-hunter.com/images/os...ember%2024.pdf

Given the reported use of unusual explosive devices, such as naval mines, which suggests a measure of desperation and the known, historical capability to manufacture chemical weapons - is this a test of an improvised chemical weapon?

[bourbon]

Given the reported use of unusual explosive devices, such as naval mines, which suggests a measure of desperation and the known, historical capability to manufacture chemical weapons - is this a test of an improvised chemical weapon?

I imagine they would test such an improvised weapon first on dogs, prisoners and/or livestock first.

However, why bother crossing the CW threshold only to use improvised weapons - when presumably you have a mature chemical weapons program? No sense escalating to the use of chemical weapons only to use something that might work.


I am skeptical of claims by rebel groups in general; and especially on alert over Syria/CW claims, there are forces at play that would like to drag the US into another Middle Eastern conflict.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Professor Paul Rogers for directing attention to this short, detailed assessment of the options on Syria's chemical weapons in mid-December 2012:http://www.natowatch.org/node/835 and the original WINEP paper from July 2012:http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...litary-options

Citing an ex-DoD intell analyst:

There are a whole bunch of really bad options here....Sitting back and pushing him not to use them, I think, is the best.

Paul Rogers column ends with:

...more likely that if any action were to be taken against Syrian chemical weapons, Israel would take the decisive action. The Israelis' concern to protect their security, including a determination to prevent radical Islamist groups acquiring weapons of mass destruction, make their position clearer than the US's..... Moreover, Israel's security commitment is so fundamental that it would almost certainly have a lower threshold of “collateral damage” for Syrian civilians than the US.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...ns-vs-politics

[davidbfpo]

A leaked US Embassy (Istanbul) report on the alleged use of a chemical weapon is on Twitter, but not in the UK media so far:http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po..._used_in_syria

Experts say the symptoms match the effects of Agent 15, known also by its NATO code BZ, which is a CX-level incapacitating agent that is controlled under schedule 2 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, to which Syria is not a party.

One comment suggested BZ / CX was similar to Mace. CDC says:

BZ toxicity, which might occur by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption, is an anticholinergic syndrome consisting of a combination of signs and symptoms that might include hallucinations; agitation; mydriasis (dilated pupils); blurred vision; dry, flushed skin; urinary retention; ileus; tachycardia; hypertension; and elevated temperature (>101ºF).

Link:http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/bz/casedef.asp

[TheCurmudgeon]

I believe I mentioned this possibility some time back as one of two possible ways for the US to get sucked into this. Israel attacks Syria based on concerns over chemical weapons going to Jordan - Iran sides with Syria - Iran and Israel get involved directly or indirectly and the west gets dragged screaming and cheering into the fray.

President Assad said on Sunday that last Wednesday's raid "unmasked the true role Israel is playing, in collaboration with foreign enemy forces and their agents on Syrian soil, to destabilise and weaken Syria".

But he said, in a meeting with Saeed Jalili, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, that his country's military was able to confront "current threats... and aggression".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21311874

[davidbfpo]

The position of western countries vis--vis the Syrian events is a complex one. But the idea that the west will accept a protracted conflict in order to weaken Syria as a state, exhaust it as a society, and reduce its ability to play a role in the region, is now widespread among the opposition. It is another bleak signal in a conflict without end.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/vicken-...itics-of-anger

This is the conclusion of a bitter article citing Syrian exiles and a few left inside Syria. I am not saying it is wrong or right.

On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.

As one Syrian journalist says:

When the revolution started we filmed the violations and documented the repression. We believed that the work of citizen journalists will have an impact, and that the world will come to our aid.

Not that 'We told you and you stood watching' is not uncommon.

[J Wolfsberger]

Would it be cynical or nasty to point out to them that at least they don't have any Crusader armies on their sacred soil?

We half a$$ed it in Somalia.
Ignored Rwanda.
Toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Went into Iraq (which was only marginally worse than Syria) to howls of disapproval.
Ignored Darfur.
Ignored (and holding) the Great War of Central Africa.
Intervened in Libya, I suspect only because of a growing refugee problem in Southern Europe.
Were dragged kicking and screaming into Mali.

And now these guys are upset that we're not jumping in there to save them in Syria.

Once, burned, twice shy. And third, fourth, fifth and counting - a blithering idiot. It is a tragedy, but this is what the entire world, including a lot of the victims of the current "man caused disaster", wanted.

Color me underwhelmed.

[J Wolfsberger]

There's this: The Coming War in the Middle East

[TheCurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

On SWC we have debated whether a Western intervention, even another option, yes the UN's "blue berets", could be justified and was practical. We have not IIRC considered the impact of not intervening, especially on the Jihadist legend of an uninterested West, with its human rights etc.

I am not in favor of intervening, at least not without a UN mandate that included the power to enforce it. The reason I am not in favor is because I don't know if anyone in the West understand the nature of the conflict, the participants, and their ultimate goals. We like to think of these things as democratic revolutions, and to a point, they are revolutions by the population against a particular autocratic leader. But that does not mean that the next leader will be any less autocratic, just supported by a larger portion of the society (ala Egypt). No matter who wins, someone is going to hate us for centuries to come.

So if there is a UN force, it needs to be an Arab or Muslim force. I am pretty certain that westerners do not have a corner on the humanitarian market. But again, there is the rub. Any such force is likely to be biased to one side or the other: to one tribe or sect. So again, I don't see an easy answer.

I would agree with some form of containment - but that does not seem to fit well with all the outsiders intents. Every outside party seems to have their own group they want to support. And again, it would have to be based on international consensus. Probably unlikely.

In the future the conflict may reach a point where it spills over and outsiders are dragged into it. My guess is it will look something like the beginning or WWI. If we are smart, we will see this coming and head it off. But there is a lot of pent-up hatred in that part of the world, as well as long memories. I am not optimistic.

[davidbfpo]

I fully agree parts of the world, not always Western, have 'stood watching' often for good reasons, including practicality. The episode I researched once was the UK decision not to coerce the white minority regime in Rhodesia, effectively leaving the black nationalists to use coercion to take power.

As long time readers will know I have an interest in how "kith & kin" effects national decision-making and to a far lesser extent coalition and international decisions. Returning to Rhodesia the white minority regime had links back to the UK mainly, only to a particular section of the political spectrum who could be nuisance to some UK governments.

Move forward from 1965-1980 to today. Modern media plus social media can put information, news and the visual image in our homes, mobile phones and computers if we watch the news. A few years ago, including the 'Arab Spring' social media became very fashionable as the 'new revolution'.

I am wondering aloud. What is a successful combination that will get external involvement right up to national government action?

Media access, an interested audience with a long standing "kith & kin" connection which may affect national decision making and a clear national interest worthy of resourcing.

Mali is a good, partial illustration. Some media, not much visual pre-French action; a small 6k presence of French nationals and a French policy of confronting AQ (in their African operational style). Another would be the US action over Grenada, a tiny speck in the Caribbean; little media, in the USA's "backyard", concerns over a "new Cuba" and an all-American (white) student medical school.

There is value in mapping the links and looking at the world or parts of the world that way.

Afghanistan after the Soviet exit aroused very few, not even its neighbours (except Pakistan eventually, creating the Taliban), almost no media (I do recall footage of Scuds being fired at Kabul); certainly no "kith & kin" with access to power - all change after 9/11.

Anyway t'is late and good night.