Syria Chemical Weapons Attack: The Players, No More Heroes

At least 70 have died in a chemical weapons attack on the Syrian town of Douma. This is yet another chemical attack in what is an ongoing string of gross human rights abuses in the war torn country. The State Department is blaming the Syrian and Russian governments for the attack. The Syrian and Russian governments are claiming the attack is the work of rebel forces. Rather than stating whether one group is responsible (I clearly don’t have the resources to make a definitive claim) this article will look at the history of the attacks, the region, and the players involved. War and chemical weapons use are both terrible, and it is irresponsible to make definite claims about either without sufficient evidence.  This pieces was written with the intent to provide context for the current crisis.  As a statement of bias to consider while reading the article, I prefer not to be obliterated in a nuclear holocaust, and my reluctance to lay blame upon anyone is informed by the knowledge that escalating tensions between Russia and The United States could turn me and everyone else into radioactive slag.

Assad

Bashar Al Assad is without question a human rights violator. For years the CIA exported its interrogations that were too inhumane to conduct on U.S. soil to Syria. Assad inherited the nation from his father, a man who took the country by military coup. His soldiers have gunned down refugees fleeing the region. For years he stockpiled chemical weapons, and he did not show full compliance during the international disarmament process.

Assad is also someone who on the surface appears to be rational and calculating. As horrific as a rendition program is, Assad’s decision to use his country as a U.S. torture site is reasonable. The majority of countries in the Middle East and surrounding areas that have not been overthrown by the U.S.’s are either important oil partners or be play host to U.S. backed human rights violations. As noted by Politico the U.S. overthrew the government of Syria in 1962 in pursuit of oil. The installed regime is the very regime that Assad’s father toppled, so it is unlikely that Assad fails to understand how precarious his position is relative to U.S. interests. The U.S. has also overthrown, or helped overthrow, the governments of Iran (1953), Iraq (1963, 2003), Libya (2011), and Afghanistan (1980’s, 2001).

The central question in regards to the current attack is whether or not Assad’s forces are responsible. This isn’t the first use of chemical weapons blamed on the Assad government, but none of the previous accusations have definitively proven Assad to be responsible. The U.N. Report on the 2013 attacks at no point lay the direct blame for the attacks on the Syrian government. However, according to the IB Times ISIS (one of the subsets of the rebel forces in Syria) acquired 1000 tons of chemical weapons material and 20,000 tons of mustard gas from of Libya which the U.S. toppled in 2011. While Libya was toppled in 2011, two years prior to the first alleged instance of Assad using chemical weapons, it is unclear when ISIS acquired the weapons. As the New York Times reports ISIS has used those chemical weapons on at least 52 occasions. The issue of Assad’s responsibility is further muddied by General Mattis’s admission that there is no evidence Syria had used poison gas in events previous to today’s attack, as per Newsweek.

If this is a question of Morality it would not be surprising for Assad to use chemical weapons. If this is a question of intelligence it is unlikely that Assad would stray from the use of conventional weaponry. Unverified chemical weapons usage has already pulled the United States into the conflict, and Assad is by all accounts beating the rebel forces in an effort to retake Syria. Why a man who is winning would resort to a form of warfare that invites the largest military in the world into conflict against him is a question I have no real answer to.

The United States

The United States has an ugly history in the Middle East. As mentioned in the previous section the U.S. has aided in or conducted numerous coups, and the following governments have been universally dysfunctional or oppressive. The rise of ISIS can be directly attributed to the fall of Iraq (a war begun under false pretenses), the U.S. supported rebels in Syria, and the overthrow of Libya in 2011.

The beginning of CIA coups and overthrows in the U.S. was Iran 1953. The Iranian president Mohammad Mosaddegh wanted the company now known as British Petroleum to give the Iranians fair prices on the oil it was exporting from Iranian oil fields. Mossadegh was prepared to nationalize the fields if the company did not comply. At the behest of British Petroleum the CIA conducted its first government overthrown and replaced Mossadegh with the tyrannical Shah who was deposed decades later. The country has been a human rights abuser and thorn in the side of the U.S. since.

The U.S.’s closest ally in the region is the Shia nation (Syria is primarily Sunni) of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia holds some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and it is also the world’s premier exporter of terrorism. Osama Bin Laden and 15 of the 19 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks were Saudi nationals, and Saudi Arabia spends billions of dollars each year to export Wahhabism the ideological foundation of most modern Islamic terror organizations. Saudi Arabia is also in the midst of a bombing and embargo campaign against Yemen that the U.N. is calling the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

As mentioned previously the United States was perfectly content to work with Assad while he was helping to hide U.S. torture sites. This relationship changed in 2000 when Assad refused to let Quatar run a $10 billion dollar pipeline through Syria. This stance against the Qatari oil pipeline is also, in all likelihood, why Russia has been so supportive of Assad.

The United State’s position in all of this is further complicated by their relationship to the rebel factions battling the Assad Government. Among the rebel factions is al-Nusra, an offshoot of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. It is yet to be seen whether the decision to fund a new wing of Al Qaeda blows up in the U.S.’s face the same way funding and training Osama bin Laden did. As the BBC writes, powerful people among U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar (chief proponents of the pipeline) have also been funding ISIS, the other key player among the rebel faction.

Russia

Vladimir Putin, and by extension Russia, is no supporter of human rights. Any serious political threat to Putin is either jailed or mysteriously dies, and his government’s official policy towards LGBTQ communities is abhorrent. However, under Putin’s leadership Russia went from outward mob rule and a death rate that rivaled World War II to a relatively stable nation with a GDP close to South Korea’s. Putin appears much like Assad to fit the mold of the ruthless pragmatist.

The aforementioned Qatari pipeline represents an existential threat to Russia. As the EIA reports Russia sells 70% of its gas to the EU., and Putin uses this economic leverage on Europe to great political advantage. If the $10 billion pipeline is constructed Qatar and Saudi Arabia would be able to replace Russia as a primary supplier of gas to the EU thus removing one of Putin’s most powerful political tools and sources of revenue. The pipeline would also greatly enrich the Saudis and Qataris which would their financial support for al-Nusra in Syria, and Al Qaeda offshoot.

At the end of the day whether or not Assad used chemical weapons on his people is likely immaterial to the Russians. A pipeline through Syria would substantially weaken their position on the international stage, cripple their economy, and would likely return them to the sort of economic squalor imposed by Goldman Sachs in the early 90’s that reduced the average Russian lifespan by nearly a decade. If there’s any lesson to be learned in the last century of politics, it’s that governments will support the most heinous of people to protect their economies.

Rebel Forces

The unrest in Syria appears to have a popular origin that was quickly co-opted and exploited by violent extremists. In 2006 global climate climate change helped to create a drought that PBS notes “is the worst in 900 years.” This drought displaced thousands of farmers who entered the cities to air their grievances. This influx created tension and hostility with the government. At some point open warfare broke out against Assad’s government, but it’s difficult to say exactly when groups like ISIS and al-Nusra became involved or what percentage of the original fighters were associated with those terrorist organizations.

Support for these organizations is a deal with the devil. Both al-Nusra and ISIS are infamous for public beheadings, rape, and suicide bombing. Al-Nusra is an offshoot of the organization that is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Osama bin Laden’s own stated agenda for 9/11 was to embroil the U.S. in perpetual war in the Middle East to turn the world against it and deplete its coffers. If al-Nusra is behind the chemical attacks it would be consistent with that goal.

As mentioned earlier ISIS has used chemical weapons on at least 52 separate occasions. They have at least 1000 tons of raw materials needed for creating sarin gas, materials they looted from the now collapsed nation of Libya. They are in operations in at least 18 nations, at one point they controlled 1/3 of Iraq, and they are the most visible proponents of Saudi Wahhabism outside of Saudi Arabia itself.

In much media coverage the phrase “moderate rebels” is thrown around, but as The Guardian and Representative Tulsi Gabbard note, there are no moderate rebels.

The Media

Our final player in this conflagration is the media. Major media outlets have a habit of advocating for military aggression regardless of circumstance. The most famous example of media cheerleading for U.S. intervention was it’s uncritical support for debunked claims of Iraq having WMDs. Mainstream media also pushed false narratives to support/begin The Spanish American War, the Vietnam War, the overthrow of half of Central and South America, and the overthrow of Iran.

During the previous Syrian Crisis the BBC was caught altering images and audio to push the chemical weapons narrative. The only news agency that ever challenged the BBC on this deception is unfortunately the naturally biased Russia Today. The issue was brought to the attention of British media watchdog Ofcom. Ofcom judged against RT for having biased coverage of the events in Ukraine, but at no point disputed that the BBC altered audio and images of attacks in Syria.

The primary cheer-leader for war in the U.S. media is the Washington Post. The Post’s owner Jeff Bezos has a deal with the CIA amounting to $600 million a year, three times the value of the paper. Jeff Bezos also sits on a Pentagon Board. The Post seems determined to undermine Russia by any means necessary. In an effort to paint as many of their competitors as tools for Russian propaganda The Post used a source called propornot. The Intercept characterized the use of propornot as, “rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, and fundamentally shaped by shoddy, slothful journalistic tactics.” After some media grumbling regarding the propornot story The Post announced it “does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.” Publishing articles from sources a person wouldn’t vouch for is not what one would consider journalistic excellence.

Unfortunately many of the media sources critical of the U.S. position in Syria are not exactly trust worthy.  Russia Today is funded by the Russian Government, golabalresarch.ca has a bad habit of 9/11 conspiracy theories, and Info Wars is run by a man who under oath claimed to have forgotten his own children’s names because of a big bowl of chili.

Among the skeptical media outlets the best source is likely The Intercept.  The Washington Post and CIA seem to dislike The Intercept, but considering the CIA’s and Post’s records on truth involving warfare that may be an endorsement.

The Takeaways

At the end of the day there isn’t a single actor among the major nations involved that is above using chemical weapons against civilians. If we include major media outlets there isn’t a single actor that wouldn’t lie about chemical weapons use either. Syria at this point has become a host to an ongoing proxy war between nations, and could be the tipping point for a nuclear World War III. As stated earlier I don’t have the resources to place blame at anyone’s feet. I don’t have access to tissue samples or the site of the attack, and I couldn’t conduct the appropriate forensic analysis if I did. What I can say is I would prefer not to be reduced to a pile of radioactive ash because of a war escalated under false pretenses. The Syrian people would likely prefer not to be used as weaponized child in the bitter divorce proceedings of the U.S. and Russia in the aftermath of World War II. The responsible decision would be to wait for an independent international analysis of the weapons attack, and proceed from there, but rational and humanitarian aren’t exactly the strong suits of the parties involved.

Attribution for header image:  By VOA News; Scott Bobb reporting from Aleppo, Syria (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAxseKRHw4) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons