Rebels Control Two Syrian Chemical Weapons Sites, Western Reappraisal of Ghouta Attack Called For

The Syrian government has presented a plan to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for removal and destruction of the precursor chemicals that make up its chemical weapons arsenal. The United States approves of this method of dismantling Syria's chemical weapons, but as of yet no country has stepped forward to host the mobile American destruction equipment; Norway declined last week. Syria, also to pleasure of USG officials, announced the existence of 41 chemical weapons facilities at 23 sites, putting it more in line with the U.S. assessment that 45 chemical weapons sites existed.

All of this is contained in a story this morning by Nick Cumming-Bruce and Michael Gordon, "Inspectors Visit All but 2 of Syria’s Declared Chemical Sites." Inspectors have visited all 23 sites except for two "because they are in contested areas in Syria’s civil war, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said in a statement on Monday."

Later on in the story, the second-to-last paragraph, the reporters try to obscure the obvious, that rebels have access to and control of the very chemicals that the United States alleged that only the Assad regime does:

The two sites the inspectors have not visited are in “contested areas where you need some kind of cease-fire or guarantees for the safety of the inspectors,” Michael Luhan, the agency’s spokesman, said in a telephone interview. It is not clear whether opposition groups control either of the two sites or the territory that inspectors would have to travel through to reach them.

There was no such prevarication when the New York Times reported the story, "Syrian Rebels Urged to Let Inspectors See Arms Sites," of rebel control of chemical weapon sites two weeks ago:

A Western diplomat in the Arab world said that though the Syrian government was legally responsible for dismantling its chemical weapons under an international agreement, its opponents should also cooperate in the process, because several chemical weapons sites were close to confrontation lines or within rebel-held territory. 

“The international community also expects full cooperation from the opposition,” the diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a delicate issue. “However divided the opposition might be, it would look very bad if the government was seen to be cooperating fully, while inspections were held up because of problems with the opposition.”

This is important point because the casus belli  for the Obama administration's aborted missile strike on Syria was based on the argument that Assad's Baathist government had to be responsible for the gas attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta that killed hundreds because the rebels didn't have access to the chemicals used in that attack. This was roundly ridiculed by opponents of Western intervention; nonetheless, Secretary of State John Kerry and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeated it regularly and the mainstream medium dutifully passed it along to the demos unchallenged. Thankfully, people are much more skeptical about government assurances of "conclusive proof" after Iraq.

Now that it is widely reported that the rebels in fact are in control of some CW sites, you would think that there would be some sort of reappraisal in the prestige press, something along the lines of the mea culpa after the invasion of Iraq revealed no WMD, something that said, "Well, actually, the rebels did have access to the chemicals used in the Ghouta attack."

Maybe it is forthcoming, but I doubt it will be any time soon. The concern among elites is that the American people have grown isolationist in the aftermath of two costly failed occupations. To spotlight another example of our government falsifying, or, to be charitable, tendentiously advocating, a casus belli means that the next invasion is going to be an even tougher sales job. And since it is the mainstream medium's role to pitch wars, owners, executives and editors are not going to go out of their way to make their job more difficult.