I am often critical of Anne Barnard, Beirut bureau chief for the New York Times, for being reflexively pro-opposition in her reporting on the Syrian civil war. Most of the time reading her dispatches feels as if one is reading reports vetted at Langley. But this morning Ms. Barnard deserves praise. Her story, written along with Hwaida Saad, "Assault on Christian Town in Syria Adds to Fears Over Rebels," is devastating to the rebel cause. Fighters, the Nusra Front in the vanguard, took control of the town of Maaloula:
Most of the town’s residents have fled, and Maaloula, one of the last places where Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken by Christians and some Muslims, has become a one-word argument against Western support for the rebels — at the worst possible time for Mr. Obama and the opponents of Mr. Assad.
Syrian-Americans lobbying against the proposed American missile strike flooded Congressional message boards with appeals for Maaloula. A common refrain was that Mr. Obama was throwing Syria’s Christians “to the lions.”
****
The situation in Maaloula underscores the core problems that bedevil the movement against Mr. Assad: the opposition, rooted in Syria’s Sunni majority, has failed to win over enough Christians, who make up 8 percent to 10 percent of the population, or other religious minorities. More than 450,000 Christians have fled their homes, church leaders say, during more than two years of war.
On the battlefield, well-armed radical Islamist groups, including foreign fighters, show little inclination to coordinate with local battalions, and sectarian killings and references to non-Muslims as infidels further intimidate Christians. In Maaloula, according to fighters, the rebel attack was led by members of the Nusra Front, a group with ties to Al Qaeda in Iraq, even after local fighters affiliated with the Western-backed Free Syrian Army tried and failed to dissuade them.
Last week, as the battle began, opponents of American military action in Syria circulated a recent video of a Syrian Christian woman accosting Senator John McCain, a proponent of military action, accusing him of abandoning Christians. “I could trace my family’s name to the Bible,” she said. “We refuse to be forced to leave.”The fact that jihadists lead the rebel war effort is a huge barrier for the Obama administration and helps explain why, in addition to war weariness on this anniversary of 9/11, the American public, though it blames the Assad regime for the Ghouta gassing, overwhelming refuses to support a military assault on Syria. People know that such an attack would benefit the very forces we have been at war with since 2001.
No, the elites misread the gullibility of the populace on this issue. Obama has requested a delay in Congressional consideration of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) while Kerry and Lavrov attempt to hammer out an agreement on the Russia-sponsored proposal for Syria to give up its stockpile of chemical munitions.
Based on the Syrian reaction -- both opposition and pro-government -- one would have to conclude that events since Monday when Kerry made his impromptu comment about a possible path to peace have benefited the anti-war forces. This from another article written by Anne Barnard, "In Shift, Syrian Official Admits Government Has Chemical Arms":
Abu al-Haytham, the commander of a rebel group in the northern provinces of Aleppo and Idlib, said he had redeployed fighters to attack government bases after the expected American strike, but was now forced to revise those plan because the strike might never happen.
He said he believed that under any deal, the government would secretly retain some chemical weapons stocks, continue using them and blame rebels for the attacks.
“We will continue the battle — it’s either death or life, no other choice,” he said. “Bashar will feel stronger now — why not, since all his fears have gone?”
Supporters of the government cast Russia in a heroic light.
“Obama is a coward,” said Shifa, 29, a humanitarian worker from Jaramana, a government-held suburb near Damascus. “He didn’t have enough support in the first place to do the strike, and now he just feels relieved.”
She said that Russian officials had saved Mr. Obama by proposing the weapons deal in response to an off-the-cuff suggestion on Monday by John Kerry, the American secretary of state, that Mr. Assad could avoid the strikes by giving up his weapons.
“The Russians are great and very smart,” she said.Obama's speech last night, which I didn't bother to watch, deciding instead to spend my time on an evening run in the late summer sun, will persuade no one to back the AUMF who didn't already do so; rather, it was a way for Obama to tactfully toss in the towel.
In all the hubbub of the last couple of days -- the AUMF apparently headed to defeat in both chambers of Congress; anti-war public opinion triumphant; then the Russian proposal to rid Syria of its chemical weapons and the Obama administrations confused, seesaw response -- the Human Rights Watch (HRW) glossy report "conclusively" blaming the Syrian government for the August 21 chemical weapons attack got buried. HRW at first glance makes a more compelling case than the U.S. Government. The HRW assessment is based on the type of rocket system used:
Syrian Government Forces Responsibility for the Attacks
The evidence examined by Human Rights Watch strongly suggests that the August 21 chemical weapon attacks on Eastern and Western Ghouta were carried out by government forces. Our basis for this finding is:
• The large-scale nature of the attacks, involving at least a dozen surface-to-surface rockets affecting two different neighborhoods in Damascus countryside situated 16 kilometers apart, and surrounded by major Syrian government military positions.It is still a circumstantial case -- the kind of munitions most likely used to disperse the gas have never been seen in the possession of the rebels while they have been seen being used by the government. One question. Weren't the initial reports -- by Anne Barnard, in fact -- of the chemical weapons attack of August 21, didn't they say that the delivery system was low-tech tube rockets?
• One of the types of rockets used in the attack, the 330mm rocket system – likely Syrian produced, which appear to be have been used in a number of alleged chemical weapon attacks, has been filmed in at least two instances in the hands of government forces. The second type of rocket, the Soviet-produced 140mm rocket, which can carry Sarin, is listed as a weapon known to be in Syrian government weapon stocks. Both rockets have never been reported to be in the possession of the opposition. Nor is there any footage or other evidence that the armed opposition has the vehicle-mounted launchers needed to fire these rockets.
• The August 21 attacks were a sophisticated military attack, requiring large amounts of nerve agent (each 330mm warhead is estimated to contain between 50 and 60 liters of agent), specialized procedures to load the warheads with the nerve agent, and specialized launchers to launch the rockets.
No comments:
Post a Comment