The options for response are all bad, and it is doubtful whether airstrikes would establish deterrence
Editorial
"There is next to no doubt that chemical weapons were used in Ghouta in eastern Damascus, and that, unlike previous alleged attacks, they produced mass casualties. Whether the death toll is in the hundreds or over a thousand, as the rebels claim, this is one of the most significant chemical weapons attacks since Saddam Hussein's on the Kurds in Halabja 25 years ago, and an unmistakable challenge to the vow Barack Obama made a year ago that, if proved, the use of chemical or biological weapons would "change my calculus".
Nor is there much doubt about who committed the atrocity. The Syrian government acknowledged it had launched a major offensive in the area and they are the only combatant with the capability to use chemical weapons on this scale. Western intelligence officials have calculated it would need an invasion force of 60,000 troops to secure the 12 chemical weapons depots at Bashar al-Assad's disposal. A lot of sarin, if indeed that was the agent used, is needed to kill that number of people. The sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway killed 13 people.
That leaves the question why. In defending their client state from the accusation, Russia called the attack a pre-planned provocation, occurring as it did within only five miles of the hotel where UN inspectors had arrived to investigate previous alleged incidents. There are four possible causes: a Syrian commander acting on his own, which is unlikely; an order from Mr Assad in the knowledge that Mr Obama would not respond; or a decision to up the firepower against the rebels who, despite losses in Qusair or Homs, still control about half of the country. The fourth possible cause is that this was an attack which went wrong, killing many more than intended.
The options for response are all bad. France and Turkey are pushing for military action, and Britain will not rule it out – possibly airstrikes against missile depots and aircraft that Mr Assad would not like to lose. There is no chance that he will allow the UN inspection team to expand the area of their investigation to anything more than three limited sites. And nor, with Russia and China's protection, is there much chance of the security council mandating them to do so. The task of the Syrian government is straightforward – to play for time, pen the UN inspection team in, and let the physical evidence itself degrade, which is swiftly done in an active combat zone.
It is doubtful whether airstrikes would establish deterrence. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has told Congress that while the US could intervene in the war, no moderate rebel group was ready to fill the vacuum. That leaves a regional war in freefall. This chemical attack may not be the last."
No comments:
Post a Comment