War/Security

Syria: Assad’s empty gestures, empty threats

Though it’s not certain Syrian President Assad was responsible for what looks like chemical-weapons attacks, his behavior seldom fails to disturb.

Assad

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons

Syrian President Assad insists that the apparent chemical-weapon attacks that have left upwards of 1,000 people dead in his country were committed by “terrorists,” as he calls the opposition. That’s his story and Russia and Syria are sticking to it.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that they were carried out “likely with high-level approval from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to American and European security sources.”

But, as Assad himself points out in an interview with Izvestia reported on by the New York Times:

… government troops would have risked killing their own forces if they had used chemical weapons. “This contradicts elementary logic,” news reports quoted him as saying. It is “not us but our enemies who are using chemical weapons,” he said, referring to antigovernment rebels as “the terrorists.”

Bearing in mind that just because he invokes logic doesn’t necessarily mean Assad actually isn’t capable of acting irrationally. But remember the area subjected to clouds of poison gas was the suburbs of the capital, Damascus, also his home. Though I’m unfamiliar with drift patterns of poison gas, putting Damascus, himself, and his famly in possible harm’s way would make him obstinate to the nth degree, not to mention self-destructive, on top of irrational. We’re talking about Hitler territory.

While it’s doubtful the opposition launched the attacks, one can’t help but wonder if, directly or by discrete suggestion, he delegated such authority to generals in order for him to maintain plausible deniability. If cornered, Assad can claim rogue elements of the military were responsible and, without immediately naming names, promise to investigate.

Assad finally agreed to admit U.N. inspectors, but that may be an empty gesture. The Wall Street Journal reported that

… the U.S. rebuffed Syria’s decision, saying the offer came too late to be credible. … “At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime’s persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days,” [an] official added.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is increasingly drawn to an armed attack. As for actually ridding Syria of its chemical weapons, as with Iran’s nuclear complex, it’s, well, complex. In November of last year, David Sanger and Eric Schmitt reported for the Times:

The Pentagon has told the Obama administration that any military effort to seize Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons would require upward of 75,000 troops.

Complicating it further was the discovery that Hezbollah fighters have been training near some of Syria’s chemical-weapons depots. Said one senior American official: “… the fear these weapons could fall into the wrong hands is our greatest concern.”

Though it’s difficult to imagine what could be wronger hands than Assad, the Syrian military, or the opposition.

Finally, from today’s Times report:

In the interview with Izvestia, Mr. Assad said, “America has taken part in many wars but could not once achieve its political goals for which the wars were started. Yes, it is true, the great powers can wage wars but can they win them?”

That might seem like a threat, necessarily empty because of the differential in military power between Syria and the United States. But, as we all well know, he’s not wrong. None of our large-scale interventions, from Vietnam to Iraq to Afghanistan, can, in any sense of the term, be characterized as victories.

Cross-posted from the Foreign Policy in Focus blog Focal Points.

Categories: War/Security

Tagged as: , ,

2 replies »

  1. The torrent of bullshit from the Colonial Powers knows no end.Back in January, the false flag plan was exposed in the Daily Mail.

    “U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’ ”

    Oddly enough the page is not now available on the Mails web site- I guess they’ve been told to get with the program, but fortunately an archived copy exists. (any reference to this in Mail comments are swiftly relegated to the memory hole.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20130130091742/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html

  2. I think that is the lesson for small tyrants that shake their fists at imperial powers. No, we cannot win the war. Since the adoption of “civilized warfare” and AK-47 powered guerilla movements, I can’t think of an instance where the empire has won–US, Russia, etc, especially when the land under discussion is very far away. However, what the empires can do (and will do) is make it brutally uncomfortable for the leader who has dissed them. No, we didn’t win the war in Afghanistan, but we made it very, very uncomfortable for bin Laden and Omar. Ditto in Libya and Iraq. Even, to some extent, for Castro, Ortega, etc. So for Assad, the real message is not that we can or will “win” the war in Syria (it’s not even clear who’s side we should be on,) but rather, that we can leave him hiding in a hole to be drug out and hung. It’s a strange sort of personal warfare.

    To quote the immortal Jimmy Desselle, facing a bar fight in Leeville, Louisiana, “Well podner, I can’t stop you from hitting me but I can sure nough break you of the habit.” The big countries can’t stop the little ones from defying them, but they can break the leaders of those countries of the habit.

    My suspicion is that this may even be the new intent of our interventionist policies–make it personally uncomfortable for those that don’t go along with the program.