AMU Homeland Security Intelligence Middle East Opinion

Reported Chemical Attack in Syria

By William Tucker

Syrian activists began uploading videos of a purported chemical weapons attack by regime forces against the Ghouta region of Damascus at around 4 a.m. local time on August 21. Activists have given casualty counts varying from a few hundred to over 1000 with the bulk of the casualties from the Irbin, Duma and Muadhamiya areas. Some doctors on the ground that have been treating the victims have stated that the main symptoms are difficulty breathing, dizziness, blurred vision, and excessive salivation. The media has quoted many chemical weapons experts as saying that the symptoms are consistent with exposure to a nerve agent. After having reviewed the videos, pictures, and statements from several doctors on the ground it does appear that the victims were exposed to a chemical of some sort. Though the Syrian regime is thought to possess the nerve agent sarin, there does seem to be some logistical problems with the use of this agent, or any weaponized agent in this mornings attack. This isn’t to say an attack didn’t occur, or was staged by the rebels, rather there is a need to fill in several intelligence gaps.

As the bombardment began, witnesses first stated that 10-15 missiles had been fired before the symptoms began to occur. Later, after the attack had ceased, there were reports and photos that would indicate artillery had been used. Though this confusion would be expected in reporting from a besieged area the difference is vital in understanding what actually took place. With such a high casualty rate the use of a nerve agent, especially sarin or tabun, would have been substantial. Because these types of nerve agents are nonpersistant – meaning they dissipate and become harmless rather quickly – the rate and concentration of fire using chemical munitions would have been hard to overstate. If, as first reported, only 10-15 missiles were used, then they would need a large payload for the needed saturation of the target area. This means a missile of at least the Scud variety would have been used. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that Scuds were launched in the capital. It is possible that further evidence will emerge, but using a ballistic missile with rudimentary guidance against such a target is overly risky. Doubly so if friendly forces are in the immediate area.

If it was indeed artillery munitions of the 122mm variety along with Russian made Grad rockets, then it is conceivable, and more manageable to saturate an urban environment with friendly forces nearby. That being said, the volume and concentration of fire would have been easily distinguishable from a mere 10-15 missiles. It’s is quite possible that the initial reports from the ground just weren’t clear until later. War zones are fluid after all. At this point we do have sufficient evidence that a high number of people were killed with a chemical of unknown composition. We also know that Syria does have chemical weapons and the ability to deliver those weapons. Finally, we know that a civilian area came under attack early this morning. There are a number of pieces to this puzzle that need to be clarified before taking any substantive action beyond UN resolutions. Knowing this explains Washington’s initial response. Though a direct intervention is still out of the question for many, an uptick in covert activity against Assad and his backers is not out of the question.

William Tucker serves as a senior security representative to a major government contractor where he acts as the Counterintelligence Officer, advises on counterterrorism issues, and prepares personnel for overseas travel. His additional duties include advising his superiors in matters concerning emergency management and business continuity planning.

Comments are closed.