Let us be clear. The United States can verify absolutely nothing<\/i> about the use of chemical weapons (CWs) in Syria. Any suggestion to the contrary is entirely false.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t take it from me \u2013 here is what US officials have to say about the subject:<\/p>\n
A mere 24 hours after Washington heavyweights from the White House, Pentagon, and State Department brushed aside Israeli allegations<\/a> of chemical weapons use in Syria, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and the White House changed their minds. They now believe \u201cwith varying degrees of confidence\u201d<\/a> that CWs have been used \u201con a small scale\u201d inside Syria.<\/p>\n For the uninitiated, \u201cvarying degrees of confidence\u201d can mean anything from \u201cno confidence whatsoever\u201d to \u201cthe Israelis told us\u201d \u2013 which, translated, also means \u201cno confidence whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n Too cavalier? I don\u2019t think so. The White House introduced another important caveat in its detailed briefing on Thursday:<\/p>\n \u201cThis assessment is based in part on physiological samples. Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example the chain of custody is not clear<\/i> so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe chain of custody is not clear.\u201d That is the single most important phrase in this whole exercise. It is the only phrase that journalists need consider \u2013 everything else is conjecture of WMDs-in-Iraq proportions.<\/p>\n I asked a State Department spokesperson the following: \u201cDoes it mean you don’t know who has had access to the sample before it reached you? Or that the sample has not been contaminated along the way?\u201d<\/p>\n He responded: \u201cIt could mean both.\u201d<\/p>\n Chuck Hagel expands on that jaw-dropping admission: \u201cWe cannot confirm the origin of these weapons.\u201d Although he goes on to conclude anyway: \u201cbut we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.\u201d<\/p>\n Four-year-olds shouldn\u2019t have confidence in the US intelligence community at this point. Yet we are supposed to believe that the Syrian government must be behind a chemical weapons attack because Hagel says so.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s consider the facts. The Syrian government has clearly stated it would not use chemical weapons during the crisis \u201cregardless of the developments\u201d unless \u201cSyria faces external aggression.\u201d<\/p>\n The US and other western states have warned for more than a year now that as the government of Bashar al-Assad begins to “topple,” the likelihood of using CWs as a desperate last measure will increase.<\/p>\n The White House reiterated this point yesterday: \u201cGiven our concern that as the situation deteriorated and the regime became more desperate, they may use some of their significant stockpiles of chemical weapons.\u201d<\/p>\n Assad\u2019s government is clearly not on its last leg. If anything, the Syrian army has made tremendous gains<\/a> in the past few weeks by thwarting rebel plans to storm Damascus, pushing them out of key surrounding suburbs, and cutting off their supply lines in different parts of the country.<\/p>\n This recent reversal of fortunes tends to validate the observations of those who have met with Assad and say the president remains confident<\/a> that he can repel rebel forces whenever and wherever he chooses to do so.<\/p>\n Which frankly removes a major \u201cmotive\u201d from any calculation by the Syrian government to use chemical weapons against civilians.<\/p>\n The constant reference to CWs in this conflict is suspect \u2013 there is no conceivable military advantage to be gained from the use of these munitions. Writing for Foreign Policy in December, Charles Blair says using CWs against rebels makes no tactical or strategic sense<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe regime would risk losing Russian and Chinese support, legitimizing foreign military intervention, and, ultimately, hastening its own end. As one Syrian official said, \u2018We would not commit suicide.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the government has calibrated its military responses throughout this conflict to avoid scenarios that would create a pretext for foreign military intervention on \u201chumanitarian grounds.\u201d<\/p>\n Just as there is evidence aplenty that rebel forces will go to great lengths<\/a> to create a pretext for foreign intervention that would help them oust Assad.<\/p>\n On March 19, a suspected chemical weapons attack near Aleppo prompted the Syrian government to ask the United Nations to launch an investigation. Witnesses reported the \u201csmell of chlorine in the air,\u201d which led to speculation that this could have been a rebel-led attack given that opposition militias had seized Syria\u2019s only chlorine gas bottling plant, east of Aleppo, that August.<\/p>\n The use of chlorine gas-based explosives by insurgents was seen not so long ago in Iraq, where attacks against both authorities and civilians are traceable to 2006. US military spokespeople, at the time, claimed that insurgent tactics had become deadlier<\/a>, seeking to draw maximum attention and impose widespread suffering.<\/p>\n The Iraq connection and insurgent tactics there are important to the Syrian conflict because of the influx of jihadist rebels flooding over the Iraqi border, bringing with them experience and know-how from fighting the US occupation. That border also allegedly hosts training camps for groups in both countries allied with al-Qaeda \u2013 a development that has come to light since a recent announcement linking al-Nusra Front to al-Qaeda\u2019s central group.<\/p>\n The White House\u2019s allegations on Thursday specified a sarin gas connection to at least one other suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria. Even if this were true, a clear-cut connection linking the use of a CW explosive to the Syrian government is not at all inevitable. In 2004, an IED roadside bomb<\/a> \u2013 a common insurgent tactic \u2013 containing the nerve agent was detonated in Iraq. There are no guarantees whatsoever that chemical munitions have not found their way into the hands of rogue elements \u2013 or in fact that they are not producing them in small quantities themselves.<\/p>\n At this point, almost everything being discussed in relation to chemical weapons inside Syria is conjecture \u2013 and to be honest \u2013 highly suspect.<\/p>\n The Times of London<\/i> (which is behind a paywall so I cannot link to it) just published a detailed and timely \u201cinvestigation\u201d of an alleged CW attack in Aleppo, claiming: \u201cthe Syrian regime prefers to gas its opponents in this small-scale way, testing the elasticity of President Obama\u2019s \u2018red line.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The article then goes on to describe the harrowing account of what appears to be a sarin gas attack from a victim, witnesses, and medical staff. But experts are now questioning these accounts<\/a>, saying that the evidence is \u201cfar from conclusive.\u201d<\/p>\n In reference to the video of the alleged CW attack referenced by The Times<\/i>, Jean Pascal Zanders, a senior researcher at the European Union Institute for Security Studies, tells McClatchy News<\/a> that there are red flags in the footage.<\/p>\n \u201cWhy only one person?\u201d he said, referring to the video showing one patient it said was a victim. \u201cWhy do I find the hospital setting, again, unlike what I would expect in a case of chemical exposure? Why is the guy \u2018foaming\u2019 in the hospital, considering the rapid action of sarin.\u201d Zanders explained that without an antidote, death is possible within one minute after exposure to sarin.\u201d<\/p>\n The Times<\/i> article then gets even stranger. To quote:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the chaos of Syria\u2019s civil war, no hospital in the rebel-held areas has the facilities to test which gas was used. Yet medical sources in northern Syria have told The Times<\/i> that in the immediate aftermath of the attack a team from \u201can American medical agency\u201d<\/i> arrived at the hospital in Afrin. They took hair samples from the casualties for testing at \u2018an American laboratory.\u2019<\/p>\n It is likely that these samples formed part of the evidence cited by the US Defence Secretary yesterday.\u201d<\/p>\n Really? A CW attack takes place in the middle of the night in Aleppo, and in its \u201cimmediate aftermath\u201d an \u201cAmerican medical agency\u201d arrives to collect samples for testing?<\/p>\n There’s more…<\/p>\n