Opinion

David Rohde

A moment of truth in Damascus and Washington

By David Rohde
August 22, 2013

The images emerging from Syria — from this hysterical young girl to these rows of corpses — should be a turning point in a conflict that has killed 100,000 people. The deaths, if proven, demonstrate either the depravity of Bashar al-Assad — or the rebels fighting him.

But the Obama administration has spent so much time distancing itself and Americans from acting in Syria that a serious U.S. reaction is politically impossible in Washington. And instead of learning its lesson — and respecting Syria’s dead — the White House is repeating its destructive pattern of issuing empty threats.

Hours after the images appeared, National Security Adviser Susan Rice demanded on Twitter that the Syrian government “allow the UN access to the attack site to investigate” and vowed that “those responsible will be held accountable.”

Deputy White House Spokesman Josh Earnest called the use of chemical weapons, if proven, “completely unacceptable” and also said those responsible “will be held accountable.”

Yet it was unclear how, exactly, the administration will hold anyone accountable in Syria. For the last two years, American military action has been off the table. And the White House’s decision in June to give light weapons to the Syrian rebels is likely to have little immediate impact.

In a previously planned letter to Congress, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, argued on Wednesday that Syria’s opposition remains too divided to run the country.

“Syria today is not about choosing between two sides,” Dempsey wrote, “but rather about choosing one among many sides. It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not.”

Dempsey said American air strikes could destroy the Syrian air force and shift the balance of power in the country but it  “cannot resolve the underlying and historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues that are fueling this conflict.” The chairman, in essence, was repeating the argument the White House has made for inaction over the last two years.

If a massive chemical attack is proven, however, this should be a watershed moment. Clearly, there are no easy solutions to ending the conflict in Syria and American ground troops should not be deployed. But if the Syrian government is found to be responsible, the administration and its European allies should consider carrying out air strikes that would punish Assad’s military. And if the Syrian opposition carried out an attack on its own people, all Western support to the rebels should end.

The conflict is growing worse, not better. It is inflaming sectarian tensions across the region and destabilizing Lebanon and Iraq. Earlier this month, CIA officials said that Syria’s mix of al Qaeda-aligned militants and chemical weapons is the single largest security threat the United States faces.

Americans understandably want to avert their eyes from Syria and the Middle East, with 1,000 dead in Egypt and car bombs routinely killing dozens in Iraq. But a mass chemical attack is chillingly different.

International law and human decency bars the use of chemical weapons. If 500 to 1,300 people died as rebels allege, the killings in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta would be the worst chemical attack in thirty years. If there was ever an incident that crossed President Barack Obama’s  chemical weapons “red line,” this it.

On Thursday, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that the West would have to respond militarily if evidence confirms a government attack.

“There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community,” Fabius said, but he cautioned, “there is no question of sending troops on the ground.”

Enormous questions surround what happened. Israeli officials said on the Thursday that their intelligence assessment was that a chemical attack had occurred but they did not know the perpetrators.

The timing is also odd. The deaths occurred three days after the arrival of a 20-member United Nations chemical weapons inspection team that the Syrian government had blocked for months. And it unfolded a mere fifteen minute drive from where the U.N. team was staying. As Patrick Cockburn rightly noted in the Independent, both sides are also fighting a propaganda war.

Depending on who carried it out, the attack signifies vastly different things. Assad could be boldly defying a West that he is convinced will not respond. Rebels could have carried out the attack in a scurrilous attempt to spark an intervention.  And the images, of course, could be fake.

In what has now become a predictable pattern, Syrian officials immediately denied any role in the deaths and Russian officials called the attack a “pre-planned provocation” by the rebels.

“All this looks like an attempt at all costs to create a pretext for demanding that the U.N. Security Council side with opponents of the regime,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Wednesday evening, American and European officials tried to get the U.N. Security Council to enact a resolution calling for an immediate investigation by the U.N. team. As Foreign Policy’s Colum Lynch reported, Russian and Chinese leaders gutted it behind closed doors.

“The 15-nation council issued a milder statement that made no reference to today’s alleged chemical weapons attack,” Lynch wrote Wednesday night. “Instead, the council merely expressed ‘a strong concern’ about ‘the allegations [of chemical weapons use] and the general sense there must be clarity on what happened.’”

With each passing hour, the Obama administration’s vows of accountability appeared more and more meaningless. In the days ahead, the White House will have limited control of whether or not U.N. inspectors gain access to the site of the attacks. But it will have total control of its messaging.

If Obama does not plan to act militarily, his aides should stop vowing to hold the guilty accountable. If we plan to do nothing, let’s stop making false promises. That is more honest to Americans, Syrians and Damascus’ newest dead.

This column was updated and revised on Thursday, August 22nd at 11:30am to reflect news events that occurred Thursday morning.

PHOTO: Syrian activists inspect the bodies of people they say were killed by nerve gas in the Ghouta region, in the Duma neighbourhood of Damascus August 21, 2013. REUTERS/Bassam Khabieh

Comments
7 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Rebel accusations, even when backed with videos and still images, do not constitute facts. A US and/or UN military action justified by rebel accusations, media hype/pressure, and public emotion (if applicable) is a non-starter. The US had 8 years of war in Iraq. A war that was, without doubt, justified by lies and disinformation. If the Obama Administration has a strategic policy that requires the removal of Assad, let’s get it into the public realm for discussion. If a short or long-term policy objective might lead to the necessity for war, let’s debate the objective and not use lies to justify implementation of the policy.

Posted by bald1 | Report as abusive
 

International law also bars the use of long term solitary confinement and the forced feeding of inmates who are protesting prison conditions, but that does not cut any ice with the United States of America, the sweet land of liberty, land of the free and home of the brave. This is happening at Guantanamo Bay Prison now, to men who have been held without charges filed against them for many years. I do not think we can preach to the world.

Posted by PeterBarlow | Report as abusive
 

We can preach to the world because our leaders are hypocrites and war profiteers. Our glorious ex-Vice, “Shotgun” Cheney makes billions from wars all over the world and with his influence can guarantee many more wars to come. We destabilize entire regions to keep the cost of energy high, we sell weapons to both sides and we use other people’s politics as the basis for our own. If we did not support despots and kings we would not have the hatred of the people to deal with. If we did not somehow feel that keeping Israel “safe” is more important than anything else in American politics we might be able to just let the Middle East work out it’s own terms. Instead we spend billions on Egypt’s army because they claim they will not strike Israel first. We send billions to Israel for weapons to make them even more dangerous to the region. Why should American taxpayers continue to spend so much of our own money to protect some intrusive little meatball country like Israel? How about we fix our own nation first, educate our children, fix the hospitals and roads and libraries? Instead we throw it away on BS and bloodshed. Absurd, obscene and wrong.

Posted by WillShirley | Report as abusive
 

when they signed convention about chemical weapons, didn’t they agreed on what should be done if the violation took place? something like they had for Trojan war, in case someone steals Helen

well, theres violation, so everyone who signed should send soldiers in, or no one at all

Posted by barenski | Report as abusive
 

America doesn’t even hold high level criminals accountable in the USA, it is a joke to think anyone else well be held accountable. Don’t they have courts in Syria? If anyone is accountable to respond outside of Syria, it is Israel or the UN.

Posted by 2Borknot2B | Report as abusive
 

Holding someone accountable doesn’t necessarily trigger a punishment for a crime. And it’s also possible that whoever made the gas was not the one who used it.

Also possible that a gas canister blew up which was never intended to blow up. Maybe it happened to be stored too close to explosive projectiles which were hit and detonated.

What seems to be missing in all this are expressions of regret for the loss of innocent life.

Posted by loyalsys | Report as abusive
 

@WillShirley

For at least 65 years, every US president of every stripe and every party has supported Israel with money and technology.

Could it be that Israel is not only an ally but an absolutely indispensable ally in an unstable (but very vital) region of the world?

Maybe you know something the most important US politicians don’t.

Posted by loyalsys | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •