[fblike]
[Readers should not that this brief was written on Monday afternoon, so facts on the ground may have changed by the time this brief is released on Tuesday morning]
Since March 2011, Syria has been plagued by a civil war as a result of the Arab spring. The Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad is clashing with diverse opposition groups for control of the country. During two and a half years of hostilities, more than 100,000 people have been killed and it is estimated that two million people have fled the country, while up to twenty-five percent of the country’s population of twenty-three million are displaced as a result of the violence. Last Wednesday, Syrian opposition forces claim that the Syrian government launched a chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Johar, where government forces were engaging rebel groups. Estimates for the number killed in this attack range from a little over one hundred to 1,300. The Syrian government denies responsibility for the attack and claims that it is a “false flag” operation. More than a year ago, President Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons by Syria would constitute a “red line” that would prompt a firm international response, but the question in Washington is what type of response should be used if it is found that the Syrian government was responsible for the Johar attack.
This brief will break down the Johar attack and alleged chemical use in the Syrian civil war, international concern with the use of chemical weapons, and courses of action that the United States may use in order to respond to the Johar attack.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Johar Attack & Chemical Weapons Use in Syria
The evidence from the attack on Johar found its way into the global consciousness through the Internet. The Atlantic of August 21st writes that British blogger and investigator Elliot Higgins recorded and assembled a YouTube playlist of seventy-five videos to show the alleged atrocities that took place in the attack. The released footage is quite graphic and it has enabled chemical weapons experts around the world to assess the validity of opposition claims that the Syrian government used a chemical weapon. Doctors Without Borders has postulated that a nerve agent might have been used, but cautions that its assessment is very preliminary based on the people that it has treated on the ground. The Economist on August 23rd provides a good breakdown of various chemical agents that could have been used in the Johar attack. The Syrian government is known to possess a variety of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin, and CX gas. However, according to that Economist article, the lack of blistering on the victims rules out mustard gas and the use of cyanogens, which get into a victim’s bloodstream, seem to be out because the victims do not have a bluish tint. However, choking agents like chlorine or phosgene gas do not appear to have been used because they kill more slowly than what is being reported out of Syria. One conclusion that is reached is that it is possible that whomever launched the attack used an industrial chemical or an expired nerve gas, which could kill but not leave all of the symptoms that it would normally leave in good condition.
The Syrian government has a history of acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), presumably for a future war with Israel over the Golan Heights. In fact, in September 2007 Israeli forces launched Operation Orchard, which destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor that it believes was intended for military use. At the time of the Iraq war in 2003, there were also murmurings that Syria would be the next staging ground of the war on terrorism, but due to the debacle that Iraq became that never materialized.
The Johar attack is not the first time that the Syrian government has been accused of using chemical weapons in its fight with rebel groups. The Washington Post of August 21st writes that American officials believe that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in June, but that did not lead to any significant action by the United States. Rebel groups allege that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons at least thirteen times during the conflict and a twenty member United Nations inspection force is on the ground investigating three of those sites (one is the village of Khan al-Assal outside of the Northern city of Aleppo and two other sites are classified). However, as Foreign Policy explains on August 23rd, the problem with a UN inspection team is that they have been given the go-ahead to visit the sites of supposed attacks because the security condition in the country is so poor. UN officials have been targets of mortar and sniper fire in Syria and Kevin Kennedy, a retired U.S. Marine colonel in charge of the UN Department of Safety and Security, says that it is not safe for inspectors to do their job. The Syrian government several days ago permitted a UN inspection force to visit the site of the Johar attack so that it could gather evidence and issue its findings to the international community. The Syrian government has typically stonewalled these inspections in the past, but combined pressure from Russia and the United States to let an inspection team visit Johar, likely forced their hand. The Syrian government likely complied to avoid any taint of appearing guilty and appear that it has nothing to hide.
The Syrian government alleges that the chemical attack did not happen from their side and that rebel forces launched the attack in order to provoke international sympathy and assistance for their cause. The Associated Press reported on August 24th that the state controlled Syrian media aired footage of Syrian officials with an alleged rebels arms cache that included gas masks and several barrels that were labeled “made in Saudi Arabia.” The Syrian government alleges that the rebels also have antidotes for chemical weapons provided by a Qatari-German medical company. Both of these accusations are important because Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been strong supporters of the Syrian opposition. Russia is more willing to accept Assad’s claim that he had nothing to do with the attack, although United States intelligence officials think otherwise. The Atlantic on August 21st provides the Syrian government a small benefit of the doubt by saying that the Johar attack could have been rebel inspired or could have been an accidental release as a result of a large bombardment of missiles that struck the area. It is also possible that a lower level commander may have used a chemical agent without authorization from the Syrian government.
Extempers should also be wary about the numbers that are being thrown around right now from the Johar attack. The Syrian government asserts that the number of victims is quite low, putting the number at less than 200 people. The opposition claims that more than 1,300 have been killed, but they have not been able to provide names and effectively account for that many people. Doctors Without Borders and medical teams have claimed that they are treating more than 300 victims, so the correct number for the attack is somewhere in between. This is not to discount human life, as one victim of a gas attack is one too many, but extempers should understand that there are competing motivations with the numbers. The Syrian government prefers to keep the numbers low, so as not to prompt an international response, whereas the opposition hopes the numbers are high, which might lead to more intervention by the international community on their behalf.
International Concern with Chemical Weapons
The first large scale use of chemical agents in warfare was in the First World War. The horrors of that conflict and troops that died horrendous deaths as a result of the use of chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas resulted in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 that banned the use of chemical weapons in warfare. Surprisingly, in the Second World War these agreement held and no chemical agents were used. Great Britain feared during the Battle of Britain that Nazi Germany would use chemical agents and dispersed gas masks in London and other urban areas, but this did not occur, likely because Adolf Hitler feared a retaliatory attack by the British. There were some calls for chemical weapons use against the Japanese in the Pacific theater of the war, but those calls were not heeded by the American government either. In fact, since the Geneva Protocol there have not been very many uses of chemical weapons and the international community takes the ban on chemical weapons use seriously.
One past incident that resembles the Johar attack occurred in 1988 when the Iraqi government, then under the control of Saddam Hussein, killed as many as 5,000 Kurds in Halabja. This action was taken in order to deter an Iranian military offensive in Northern Iraq. The Kurds had assisted Iranian forces against the Iraqi government in the bloody Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980-1988. The Halabja attack was orchestrated by Saddam’s cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, also known as “Chemical Ali,” and it remains the largest chemical attack on a civilian center in history. Ali was captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, sentenced to death for the Halabja massacre in June 2007, and was executed by hanging in January 2010. The Iran-Iraq war featured the use of chemical weapons and the New Yorker of August 22nd explains that at the time of the Halabja massacre the United States was an ally of Iraq. When evidence emerged about the massacre, President Ronald Reagan and his administration accepted Saddam’s denial of responsibility for the attack, but started to walk this back when the scale of the massacre became known. Some historians point to this as the point when the United States began to reverse its support for Saddam’s regime and he became a full fledged enemy of the United States after his invasion of Kuwait in 1990, which culminated in the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
The danger of the international community remaining mum about potential chemical weapons use in Syria is that other nations may interpret inaction as a blank check to use chemical weapons in the future against their enemies, both internal and external. As the Council on Foreign Relations notes on August 22nd, the 21st century will be a very dangerous and different place if the use of WMDs became seen as just another weapon in warfare and the leaders who use them must know that they will face heavy consequences, which include their overthrow, arrest, and imprisonment. There is also the danger that “rogue states” like North Korea and Iran might interpret the lack of international action as weakness and push forward with their nuclear programs.
However, the problem with the Syrian conflict is that the international community is heavily divided on what steps to take. An attempt to get a strong UN Security Council resolution through decrying the Johar attack failed because of the threat of a Russian and Chinese veto. Instead, as the Washington Post writes on August 22nd, it had to settle for a statement supporting a “thorough, impartial, and prompt investigation” into the matter. Russia has heavily supplied al-Assad’s forces and does not appear to be shifting its support after the Johar attack. Without Russia agreeing to strong UN Security Council action it seems unlikely that the UN will authorize a no-fly zone or other aggressive measures against the Syrian government. In fact, Russia regrets that it did not veto a Security Council resolution in May 2011 that approved of action against Moammar Gaddafi’s government in Libya, which led to his overthrow and eventual execution at the hands of rebel forces.
U.S. Response
The Obama administration has reacted very cautiously to the Syrian civil war, much to the chagrin of rebel forces in the area and some international experts. The Economist breaks down President Obama’s view of the Middle East in its Lexington column on August 24th and says that he does not want to take sides in the region’s conflicts because he fears that if the U.S. gets too entangled in one of those conflicts it will prove as bloody and costly as the Iraq war was for President George W. Bush. This helps explain why President Obama has not called the Egyptian military government’s takeover of the country a coup and has been mum about rising sectarian violence in Iraq. That same article goes on to write that there is a growing “Iraq syndrome” in the administration and parts of the federal bureaucracy. This syndrome leads to American concerns that any intervention that America tries in the future it will botch and regret.
Senator John McCain, President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 presidential election, according to CNN on August 24th, favors a more aggressive approach to the Syrian conflict. McCain’s idea is to have the U.S. military take out runways used by the Syrian air force and give the Syrian opposition anti-aircraft and anti-missile weapons, which would institute a no-fly zone in the conflict. The problem with this approach, though, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey wrote in a letter to Congress, is that you cannot just arm the rebels as a whole and have to picky about who you arm. Most of the international press has observed that extremist elements are growing increasingly influential in the Syrian rebel movement and some of those have ties to al-Qaeda. Advocates for the Syrian opposition insist that the administration can arm moderate rebel groups, but the problem with that is identifying those moderate groups and that once they are armed it becomes impossible to make sure that they are not overwhelmed by more radical factions, that their weapons are not taken, and then used against American forces elsewhere in the future. Extremist Syrian rebels have also slaughtered Christians in areas they have come to occupy, leading many of Syria’s Christians to support Assad’s regime. A move to arm the rebel forces would likely provoke a heated political backlash by Christian and conservative groups against the Obama administration, who would accuse him of abandoning the area’s Christian minorities and arming America’s enemies. Furthermore, the governments that emerged after the Arab Spring have proven highly dysfunctional. Libya is a basket case and after Gaddafi’s death, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stephens was murdered in Benghazi. The Muslim Brotherhood poorly governed Egypt for a year, which led to a majority of the Egyptian population supporting its overthrow on July 3rd. The Economist argues on August 24th that sectarian violence and violence among rebel groups has grown during the duration of the Syrian civil war, which means that if Assad is overthrown the country could descend into chaos. This is further complicated by Iran and Hezbollah siding with the Syrian government, creating an interesting brawl between among two terrorist groups that the West abhors in Syria. Israel also nervously looks over its Northern border at the Syrian conflict. The Israelis know that Assad does not like them, but they know how he reacts and view him as a “paper tiger.” A new government, especially if it is in the hands of extremists, could heighted Israeli security concerns in the region, especially on the heels of the ongoing Egyptian unrest.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties of the political situation in Syria the Obama administration will likely have to do something in response to the Johar attack if it is confirmed that the Syrian government is responsible. For his part, President Obama has ruled out ground troops and seems to indicate that a no-fly zone will probably not be used, likely because the it would not be authorized by the UN Security Council and unlike President George W. Bush, Obama favors working within international institutions. The U.S. has four warships in the Eastern Mediterranean and all are armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles. The Council on Foreign Relations postulates that the U.S. will likely end up launching cruise missile strikes at anything that they deem is associated with chemical weapons, which include command and control sites and government airfields. Action is likely to stop there, as a reminder to Assad that the international community will not accept his use of WMDs against civilians. The Pew Research Center shows that the American public is likely to support that action as 63% of Americans support involvement in the Syrian conflict if chemical weapons are used, whereas only 17% support involvement if chemical weapons are not used. However, a recent Reuters poll says that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose involvement in Syria regardless of facts on the ground. It is said that President Obama favors a negotiated settlement to the Syrian dispute, but after two and a half years of fighting, which is much longer than many in the international community thought Assad would last, that looks like more of a distant possibility.
It will likely take weeks, if not more, for the UN inspection team to release the results of its investigation. Although U.S. intelligence believes that Assad was responsible, they are going to need to assemble a coalition to support their efforts from countries like Great Britain and France and those countries will likely want evidence from the UN before committing themselves to an operation. Action without an international mandate might create too many bad memories of the Iraq conflict of 2003. Furthermore, Iran has warned the U.S. that attacking its Syrian ally would carry significant international consequences. Meanwhile, the Syrian war drags on with no end in sight and will likely stay that way for a while.