Be Wary, Warmongers Aren't Done with Syria

With the release of the United Nations report on chemical weapons in Syria yesterday a bum's rush is underway to assign blame to the Syrian government for the August 21 chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. I see this as a way to rejuvenate the the unilateral force option that was taken off the table temporarily last week thanks to a combination of overwhelming public opposition and skilled Russian diplomacy. The Western powers will use the Sellstrom report to generate support in the Security Council for the use of force if the Syrian government is decided to be not in compliance with the Kerry-Lavrov agreement ridding the country of its chemical munitions. Then we will be right back to the situation preceding the invasion of Iraq: The United States will insist that the Syrian government is not cooperating; Russia and China will disagree; and the United States will jump the rails and launch a unilateral attack.

That's the idea at least. First work has to be done to make it universally accepted that the Syrian government launched the Ghouta attack. The UN report -- I haven't had a chance to read it yet, just skim sections online -- is said to point to the Syrian government for two reasons: 1) the rockets used require large launchers "not previously documented or reported to be in the possession of the insurgency"; and 2) the azimuth data gleaned from the rocket impact craters are said to point back to a Syrian military facility. This is from a Rick Gladstone and C.J. Chivers story, "Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas," that appears in the New York Times today:

The weapons inspectors, who visited Ghouta and left the country with large amounts of evidence on Aug. 31, said, “In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used.” 

But the report’s annexes, detailing what the authors found, were what caught the attention of nonproliferation experts. 

In two chilling pieces of information, the inspectors said that the remnants of a warhead they had found showed its capacity of sarin to be about 56 liters — far higher than initially thought. They also said that falling temperatures at the time of the attack ensured that the poison gas, heavier than air, would hug the ground, penetrating lower levels of buildings “where many people were seeking shelter.” 

The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance. 

These findings, though not presented as evidence of responsibility, were likely to strengthen the argument of those who claim that the Syrian government bears the blame, because the weapons in question had not been previously documented or reported to be in possession of the insurgency. 

Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.

One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex. 

Other nonproliferation experts said the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad’s side in the conflict, not only in the weaponry fragments but also in the azimuth data that indicated the attack’s origins. An analysis of the report posted online by the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, said “the additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government.”

The first argument -- that insurgents have not been seen using large rocket launchers -- I don't find compelling. Peter Krohn posted a link to a video yesterday showing rebels using 140-mm rockets. Granted this not a 330-mm rocket that Gladstone and Chivers mention. But simply because rebels have not been documented using this particular ordnance is not proof of Syrian Arab Army guilt.

What is more difficult to refute, assuming it is being accurately reported, is the azimuth data. We'll have to see how this plays out. Syria needs to address this argument in particular. There is enough information in the public sphere regarding rebel access to sarin and rockets that this isn't so much of a problem. But what about angles of impact pointing to Syrian military facilities?

The Gladstone and Chivers story ends tendentiously though, making me suspicious of the information that preceded it:

The report’s release punctuated a tumultuous week spawned by the global outrage over the attack, in which an American threat of punitive force on the Syrian government was delayed as Russia proposed a diplomatic alternative and intense negotiations between the United States and Russia led to a sweeping agreement under which Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal could be destroyed. 

The United Nations, in danger of becoming irrelevant in helping to end the Syria conflict, was suddenly thrust back into a central role, with the Security Council now engaged in deliberations over an enforceable measure to hold Syria to its commitment on chemical weapons.

This is a clear example of an ex post facto sculpting of reality. Horrible as it is, the global outrage was not over the chemical attack. Global outrage was over threats of another illegal, destabilizing U.S. war. It was not the United Nations that was in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Obama. This is slanted reporting. Be wary, the warmongers aren't done with Syria.