Syria’s ongoing civil war has made the task of intelligence gathering particularly difficult. Getting specific information on the movement of weapons in conflict areas is not easy. In fact, as recently as 2011, during the intervention in Libya, NATO lost track of the number of Scud B missiles that country had, and were not able to secure the movement of weapons out of the country, despite having a presence on the ground. Similarly, U.S. concern that Saddam was going to launch a chemical attack using scud missiles from Iraq’s western deserts was a significant feature of the First Gulf War – but the threat went unrealized.
The U.S. claims its intelligence over Syria is better: “The U.S. government has good visibility into the chemical weapons program and we continue to monitor it” said a U.S. Defense Department spokesperson. U.S. intelligence has indeed focused its attention on the chemical weapons program and it has gathered valuable intel from defectors such as Major General Adnan Silou, the former head of the chemical weapons program. But the information is far from complete. The more common perception on Syria, including from Western officials is that “there are so many unknowns, so little information available that it becomes almost impossible to know what the regime may or may not be doing."
Interestingly, the French newspaper Le Monde has provided additional information on the intelligence these reports are based on. It states that NATO and Turkish intelligence have confirmed suspicious activities around Syrian chemical weapons sites, but do not elaborate on the extent of the chemical weapons threat. In addition, U.S. and EU intelligence is partially based on information obtained from NATO surveillance flights, which are part of a broader operation in place since 2001 in the Mediterranean.
So what do we do with fragmentary and uncertain information?
The first step is to accept that nothing is clear in Syria at the moment. Although it is unlikely that Assad will resort to using his chemical weapons (and even less likely that the armed forces would universally comply with such orders should they come), we cannot be certain of it. As I argued in The Diplomat in July following the detection of movement of chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, options for securing or destroying Syria’s chemical weapons do not look good. That is still the case. Indeed, last month U.S. military officials reportedly told President Obama that upwards of 75,000 U.S. troops would be needed to successfully secure Syrian’s chemical weapons stockpiles. At the moment, the only two ways we can respond to fears that Assad will resort to these weapons are preparation and establishing unequivocal clear red lines.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Jeanne Guillemin
This overview is excellent. Readers might also note that the International Criminal Court includes the use of chemical weapons as a war crime. While some Syrian leaders might not much care, the dozens of military officers and troops needed to mount a chemical weapons attack might be concerned about what happens after–and whether they could be brought to justice.
DanPendleton
Amazing! I finally found one (1) story that wasn't related to China! Oh wait, leave it to the Diplomat to find the connection between Al-Assad and China – and you know they will.
Maneno
Now the Great Saviour is moving to 'prevent' Assad to use his chemical 'Weapons'.
Our Great Saviour, that was attempting (and mostly successfully) to prevent almost half of the nations of this world to be ruled by their own, home-made dictator, replacing him with the – 'In God We Trust – US-made democracy, a real farce of real democracy.
This Great Saviour, who now will try to topple Assad, that Great Saviour who has used – without need – no chemical gas-weapons, but Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam, Depleted Uranium (DU) in the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan and Irak. Substances with much longer lasting effects, DU with a half-time period of 4.5 billion years, everlasting in the environment with everlasting effectiveness. This Great Saviour that has always killed recklessly 'for peace' will now go and deal out the last blow, after all the revolutionary mercenaries, paid by Saudi Arabia and the other Emirates and organized and commanded by MI6 and Mossad and CIA, have done the initial ground work. It probably should have been like Lybia, but Assad was on his watch.
Just another BS-war for 'peace'. A peace based on devastation, killings, financial profit and suffering for innocent civilians for the next centuries to come.
Frederick Melick
Great work Dina,yes dont forget the damage done by the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ and the lies and disinformation over Iraq,Assad using chems is a longshot but the enemies of Syria might use them and blame the regime.
Brian from Chicago
You're missing the scenario that keeps me up at night: a scorched earth policy by which Assad turns over WMDs to Hezbollah. That is, in fact, the biggest reason for why no one has intervened directly up until this point.
Brian from Chicago
By the way, I deliberately excluded Hamas. After operating out of Syria for decades, they bailed onces Syria's government turned against Syria's people. There's something to be said for an organization that claims to be the defenders of Sunnis but ultimately just wants to kill Jews.
Les Gore
Let's not forget, Al-Assad's crazy daddy used chemical weapons on his own people some 25-30 years ago killing some 30,000. And what did the civilized world do back then? Nothing. What's more he stayed in power for many, many years after, until his recent death. So what will the civilized world do this time?
Frank Wall
I agree in seeing no difference between killing through chemicals or artillery. And it shouldn't always be up to the US and NATO. Arab nations like Saudi Arabia need to start using their expensive western equipped militaries to take responsibility for what's happening in their backyards.
Brian from Chicago
Hello, Frank.
I disagree that there is no difference. Sure, deaths are deaths, but civilians – everywhere – need assurances that governments adhere to norms that aim to spare innocents from injury and death (not true for Assad, but Syrian Sunnis need to sleep at night, so the point still stands). Chemical weapons are exceedingly indiscriminate, and so I would argue that Syrians, Turks, Israelis – everyone, really – needs to know that someone has the balls to draw red lines. If not the US (or the US and NATO) then who do you think would draw those lines and present a credible consequence for Assad's regine? Russia? China?
Frank Wall
Hi Brian,
I absolutely agree with you that civilians need assurances that governments adhere to normality. I was stating that Assad has crossed the red line already through his massacres of the civilian population. Death is death and something should be done to stop the killing, regardless of whether its through conventional artillery shells or munitions containing Sarin. And you correctly do point out that it must be left to the US and NATO to call Syria on such an escalation of the conflict. Still, it would be nice to see the Arabs band together to try and solve the problem by themselves.
Brian from Chicago
I couldn't agree with you more about your last point. These past 2-1/2 years have provided ample opportunity for Arabs to think and act as a united community with an agenda that doesn't involve Israel, and (aside from booting Syria out of the Arab League) they have collectively disappointed.
John Chan
@Brain from Chicago,
Indeed Russia and China had failed their responsibility to draw red lines to protect the millions of Iraqis, Serbs, Afghans from being slaughtered by the USA and its NATO lackeys on the made believe accusations.
Shame on Russia and China to let the USA and its NATO lackeys ran amok around the world bombing and killing un-abided.
bert
This claim or accusation could well turn out to be a big red herring. To pave the way for Nato to make a lunge for the jugular against Assad and Syria. Let's hope Nato won't bite more than it can chew. AQ is growing stronger by the day in Syria and definitely will not accept Nato ground forces in Syria. Planes, bombs and missiles may be ok but AQ won't accept Nato soldiers, paratroopers or tanks. Syria could become a giant version of Benghazi if Nato (i.e. Turkey) wants to begin acting foolish in Syria.
Drive by
Didn't we intervened for "Preventing WMD Nightmare in Iraq" once before? It was a fiasco as far as I know. Not again!
Brian from Chicago
1) Iraq's Baath party could not account for all of the chemical weapons that their own documentation stated that they created. That was, indeed, a fiasco in the making. But I'm not convinced that the US was at fault for trying to track it all down.
2) Syria's Baath party has unprecedented stockpiles of chemical weapons. Do you think Syria created them all by themselves?
The fact that the US did not find all of the weapons they were looking for does not mean that they did not exist. Only 5 years ago the US was looking for and (up until that point) unable to find both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Does that mean that they did not exist? No. It means that it took longer to find well-hidden people.
You are pointing to the political ramifications of Gulf War II as a justification for not holding a clear line against the Syrian Baath regime. I am less concerned with the fates of the politicians than those of ordinary civilians on either side of Syria's borders. I wish Assad shared my priorities. Clearly, he does not.
John Chan
@Brain from Chicago,
One of the pillars of human rights is “one presume innocent until proven guilty.” On the other hand the brutal authoritarian practice “one presume guilty until proven innocent.” You said “did not find all of the weapons they were looking for does not mean that they did not exist” is an expression of “you are presume guilty until proven innocent,” a mindset of authoritarian tyrant.
The USA has plenty of WMD, chemical, nuclear, etc., why is it not a crime for the USA owning them, but Iraq deserves to be bombed and killed into total destruction just because the USA said so without proof? It seems the USA concerns less about human rights, all its cares is its creditability of American’s willingness to use lethal force to enforce “you are either with us or against us.”
Brad
How thick is the line between someone that orders the bombing of a hospital full of women and children, or someone that orders a chemical shell fired at that hospital? I think that line is pretty thin and Assad is one of the few leaders in the world that would cross it. I personally don't think any countries should commit ground troops for the clean up operations. These sites are in the middle of nowhere and any chemical release due to a bombing would only kill the people mixing the binaries. Too bad for them, shouldn't have worked in Assad's chemical weapons division…Not to mention the stuff that is not mixed would not cause a release if it was bombed, especially if it were vaporized in the explosion.