Reuters repots the best evidence that Assad had a direct hand in the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria:
An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were “witting and directed” the gas attack. But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said.
The findings were partly based on intercepted communications “involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive” which “confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime,” it said.
As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.
Reports that Assad’s brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.
It genuinely concerns me that the reason that the United States hasn’t made a more convincing case is that we don’t have one.
I fail to see why we need a direct link to Assad. It was a large enough attack that this was not an accident. If some senior officer went rogue, Assad could give him up. Seems unlikely though, as I assume this runs like most dictator run militaries where it is a very top down structure.
Steve
You know. . . Those planes that bombed Pearl Harbor? They could have been Russian planes disguised as Japanese for the purpose of getting us into WW2. I mean, we only have FDR’s word that the Japanese declared war. Is there videotape of that? No? Not even a photograph?
And we know FDR wanted an excuse to get into the war. So he latched onto this Russian false flag attack then isntead of going right after Japan, he went after Germany. Which of course is what he secretly wanted to do all along. Later on what does FDR do with Stalin? Hands him all of Eastern Europe as a reward for playing his part in the conspiracy.
We have democratically elected a president because we believe He has enough experience, intelligence, and integrity to represent us in these matters. I believe this is demonstratively not true.
Reference Bengazi.
Good luck to us, Gray Shambler.
These claims the Assads had nothing to do with the attack sound more like a fallback postition from the Bombing Party. “Assad is evil and gasses people while eating his Fruitloops” didn’t work, so now we’re hearing, “yeah, maybe he didn’t do it but someone on his side did it and if you just had the proper clearance we’d prove it to you.”
There are a limited number of possibilities here:
1. The regime did it.
2. A faction of the opposition did it.
3. A third party did it (insert conspiracy theory here).
4. There was no attack, it was all staged.
The evidence for #1 is compelling but not conclusive (at least from open sources), the evidence for #2 is thin and ambiguous, and the evidence for #3 & 4 are practically nonexistent outside the truther community. I think it’s fair to say the regime is the leading suspect by far.
BTW, here is a very good amateur doing some very solid analysis about the attacks.
@andy, I’m not sure 1. and 2. don’t also necessarily include a conspiracy theory. For 1., what was the regime’s motivation to conduct the attack near the UN inspectors. For 2., I assume the rebels attacked Sunni neighborhoods, sacrificing their own to make it appear that it was a regime attack.
More generally, I’m not sure I care who did it. The regime appears to be violating Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention by regularly attacking civilians with conventional weapons. If I am right about that, I wouldn’t object to the U.S. degrading the regime’s military capabilities as a reprisal. My concerns are probably elsewhere, such as whether doing so would really improve the situation for civilians.
PD,
There is at least evidence for #1 and #2 unlike #3 and 4.
I think we are cognitively ill-equipped to guess at what motivates Assad or his Commanders. The fact that the UN inspectors were in Damascus is something to keep in mind, but is not dispositive. I don’t say that lightly – the history of guessing motivations based on what we think are rational courses-of-action is both illustrative and humbling. My focus is therefore more on capabilities than motivations.
I agree in the sense that we should be more focused on our own actions and the consequence of those actions rather than debating the minutiae of claims regarding attribution.
Ben:
Seriously, who the fuck do you think did it? Martians?
This was a strategic rebel position. Pretending that the rebels may have done it is asinine. Might they have gassed some irrelevant village somewhere to get us in? Sure, in theory, we’re talking about bad people. But their own families, in a strategic location that Assad has been desperately trying to clear of rebels?
That’s off into Donald Trump/Michele Bachmann territory. Especially give the scale of the attack and the well-known difficulty of handling sarin.
Martians. That’s a good one.
Don’t be silly. I can’t believe the real story hasn’t gotten out. You see, some guy made an offensive YouTube video and Assad saw it, so he got really pissed and gassed people. I’d tell you how I know, but its classified. But just ask Susan Rice.
@Michael,
Calm down. I didn’t write anything about who did or did not use chemical weapons. What I was addressing were the continually shifting justifications as each argument in favor of the Bombing Party vaporizes. Do you really place so little value on human life you’re fine with us killing people based on circumstantial evidence? We will have murdered people because that’s what a military engagement is, state-sanctioned murder. I won’t support that without a hell of a lot more evidence than we have and I have trouble accepting that a man as intelligent and decent as yourself would do so.
In answer to your question and based on the lack of evidence demonstrating the Syrian government was in fact behind this attack, I consider rebels armed with CW by the Mossad at least as plausible. You really think each rebel knows every other? There are numerous factions and many of them hate each other and would not hesitate to gas the families of another faction. You keep assuming these two sides are monolithic in organization and intent and this just ain’t so.
As an aside, are pro-interventionists really considering the possible consequences of attacking Syria? We will have done it alone, which means Syria and its ally Iran will recognize this as perhaps their only opportunity to respond aggressively without drawing international condemnation on themselves. Our forces globally are overcommitted, spread thinly and are therefore vulnerable, particularly in the Middle East. We can be hurt.