By William Tucker
Contributor, In Homeland Security
Last weekend, the U.S., France and the U.K. carried out a series of military strikes in Syria designed to destroy or at least diminish Syria’s ability to use chemical weapons. This military action was taken in response to the chemical attack on the civilian residents of Douma that occurred a week ago.
Syria’s ruling regime has sought to regain control over Douma for years, but the rebel-held city has held out despite severe bombardment. After the chemical attack, Jaish al-Islam, an anti-Assad militant group that has operated around Douma for years, agreed to a deal with the Assad government.
The militants specifically cited the chemical attack as their impetus for the agreement. They surrendered their weapons in exchange for a withdrawal to northern Syria.
Invariably, there have been questions about the chemical attack. Russia and Iran claim that the attack never took place or was actually a false flag operation by the West and the rebel groups.
Syrian loyalist forces have taken control of Douma and the surrounding area. As a result, the team heading to investigate the attack from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) must deal with degraded evidence – if any evidence remains at all.
Russia Claims Chemical Attack Was Faked, but Evidence Proves Otherwise
Russia claims that it had intelligence that a false flag operation was in the offing nearly a month before the attack. But getting militant groups and thousands of civilians to participate in such an operation without spilling the details is fantasy. Hundreds of people were indeed sickened by some chemical, and that worked in the favor of the Assad regime.
There are claims that the chemical attack didn’t happen because Assad had no need to use such weapons. While Assad used indiscriminate bombing throughout the war, chemical weapons have a profound psychological effect. It is possible that Assad believed he could use internationally banned weapons and escape severe punishment since he has Russia’s backing.
That belief is certainly plausible. The U.S.-led strikes targeted facilities used in the production of chemical weapons, but forward-deployed munitions escaped the onslaught. In other words, the Syrian military can still launch attacks with chemical weapons, but it will be difficult for the Assad regime to replenish its stockpile.
It seems odd that the U.S. would launch a punitive measure without ensuring that the entire chemical weapons stockpile was destroyed.
Assad Risks Escalation of Force, But US May Not Provide It
The risk of escalation is perhaps the most persuasive in this decision. But there is also the realization that the U.S. cannot change the strategic picture on Syrian ground without a substantial deployment of military force. The Defense Department and other policymaking centers are more comfortable applying limited force on an as-needed basis, a concept known in military parlance as “mowing the lawn.”
Chemical Weapon Usage in Syria Provokes International Problems
Another question worth considering is, “Why does Washington and much of the world care what method Assad uses to slaughter civilians?” Assad and his allies have killed a majority of Syrians by conventional methods that are also considered war crimes, so it is strange that the only punitive measures taken against the regime occur over the use of chemical weapons.
To understand this sentiment, it is necessary to look beyond Syria and consider the international treaties that specifically ban the use of chemical weapons. These weapons are so horrific that much of the international community has agreed that chemical weapons must be completely banned.
Images from World War I and well into the present clearly demonstrate the destructive nature of chemical weapons. Nevertheless, several regimes continue to flout international demands for the dismantling of these weapons.
The punitive attacks in Syria help to demonstrate that the use of chemical weapons by any regime will not be tolerated. With President Trump preparing to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in a month, this demonstration will likely play an unspoken role in their discussions.
Syrian Situation Remains Unchanged
The punitive attack was not meant to change the strategic picture on the ground. Russia will not drop its support for Assad as a matter of principle. Similarly, Iran will not leave Syria as a matter of regional strategy.
These U.S-led strikes may lead Assad to believe that he will have to hold off using chemical weapons in the short term. However, due to strategic issues pressuring Syria, he cannot abandon their manufacture or use forever.
As long as Assad has a Russian and Iranian presence in his country, he can get away with any number of excesses. But he cannot go so far as to lose Russia as an ally in process.
Overall, nothing has really changed on the ground in Syria. Assad continues to regain territory with help from Russia and Iran. Turkey is still engaged in northern Syria for its own ends, and the U.S. seeks an exit in one way or another.
For its part, Israel is grappling with a new threat on its northern border while the rest of the Middle East still reels from conflict. A small punitive strike by the three Western allies against a limited target will not change this situation.
Comments are closed.