U.S. Says al-Assad Used Chemical Weapons

Based on a reading of this morning's story by Mark Mazzetti, Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler, "U.S. Is Said to Plan to Send Weapons to Syrian Rebels," which is definitely worth checking out, yesterday's announcement that U.S. analysts have concluded that the Assad government has used poison gas and that military support for the Syrian opposition will now commence is not as dire as first imagined. It appears that Obama has only signed off on small arms and ammunition with the possibility of antitank weapons. No antiaircraft weapons will be supplied; a no-fly zone is all but ruled out.

This will please neither the Arab monarchies, nor the war pigs in the State Department and the U.S. Senate. To be charitable to Obama, a weakness to which I am susceptible, he appears to be trying to deftly defuse a lot of unseemly war lust. Reading the statement by Benjamin Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser wunderkind, one finds that it is pretty tepid. Here's the part that deals with the allegation that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government:

Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year. Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information. The intelligence community estimates that 100 to 150 people have died from detected chemical weapons attacks in Syria to date; however, casualty data is likely incomplete. While the lethality of these attacks make up only a small portion of the catastrophic loss of life in Syria, which now stands at more than 90,000 deaths, the use of chemical weapons violates international norms and crosses clear red lines that have existed within the international community for decades. We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons. 

The body of information used to make this intelligence assessment includes reporting regarding Syrian officials planning and executing regime chemical weapons attacks; reporting that includes descriptions of the time, location, and means of attack; and descriptions of physiological symptoms that are consistent with exposure to a chemical weapons agent. Some open source reports from social media outlets from Syrian opposition groups and other media sources are consistent with the information we have obtained regarding chemical weapons use and exposure. The assessment is further supported by laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin. Each positive result indicates that an individual was exposed to sarin, but it does not tell us how or where the individuals were exposed or who was responsible for the dissemination.

There was a prompt push back from Syria and Russia. And it is important to keep in mind that the UN fact finding mission does have evidence of rebel use of chemical weapons. We know this from Carla Del Ponte's statement in May. The portion of Rhodes' statement that deals with this is ridiculously weak. "We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons." One can easily imagine a situation where a deserter grabs a cache of canisters on his way out the door.

No, it appears that this is all just status quo. And the status quo favors the Syrian government. The opposition has no answer for the more highly motivated fighting forces of the government and its Hezbollah allies. Antitank guns will not change this; a no-fly zone would, but this does not appear to be in the offing.

An interesting portion of the Mazzetti et al. story is the growing impatience of the rancid Arab monarchies with Obama:

But the president’s caution has frayed relations with important American allies in the Middle East that have privately described the White House strategy as feckless. Saudi Arabia and Jordan recently cut the United States out of a new rebel training program, a decision that American officials said came from the belief in Riyadh and Amman that the United States has only a tepid commitment to supporting rebel groups. 

Moreover, the United Arab Emirates declined to host a meeting of allied defense officials to discuss Syria, concerned that in the absence of strong American leadership the conference might degenerate into bickering and finger-pointing among various gulf nations with different views on the best ways to support the rebellion.

It's safe to assume that Obama's approval of small arms will be followed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar moving to provide the jihadi heavier weapons.

On top of this there is the filthy spectacle of the flaccid Bill Clinton doing his Gulf paymasters' bidding and shilling for more rebel weapons. (See also Colum Lynch's Turtle Bay blog.)

Adding to those voices was former President Bill Clinton, who earlier this week endorsed a more robust American intervention in Syria to help the rebels, aligning himself with hawks like Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who fault Mr. Obama for his reluctance to get entangled in the war. 

Speaking on Tuesday at a private session in New York with Mr. McCain, Mr. Clinton said, “Sometimes it’s best to get caught trying, as long as you don’t overcommit.”

Clinton has a knack for fomenting war. Think about Yugoslavia in 1999. Clinton took his high approval ratings following the GOP impeachment and went to war against a country trying to put down an internal uprising that was stoked by foreign intelligence agencies. Today Kosovo is a failed state held together by UN assistance; it is known for exports of harvested organs and prostitutes.