Coming Elections in Syria, Sponsored Today by: Chlorine Gas

Officials claim that Syria has handed over nearly 90% of its chemical weapons stores. Percentages are easy figures when they fail to elaborate on how those numbers are derived. Intelligence has existed for some time that suggests Syria will fail to disclose its full chemical weapons stockpiles and hold on to some instead. Moreover, easily-weaponized agents could be hidden away, particularly if they are not being sought and the world believes Syria has included those in its concessions. Such concerns over dual-use components hover over rogue states like a constant fog. As long as some internal control is maintained, it isn't so hard to imagine clandestine operations of all kinds. Syria has even threatened Israel and other spillover, something that one imagines would be difficult were the government fighting to its last man and materiel for domestic control.

If (nearly) 90% of those chemical weapons are handed over, why is Syria still employing chemical weapons, as the recent chlorine gas attack indicates? Apparently, chlorine gas is not included on the list of chemical weapons Syria is giving up, although it is banned. Who knew that the agreement in Syria allowed for such leniency and compromise as to which weapons it could keep and which it must give up? At the same time, the government continues to direct blame to the rebels, who have less incentive and even less means to launch chemical weapons strikes. It just doesn't entirely add up.

Amid the conflict, al-Assad's government has set a date for new elections -June 3, 2014. That's correct - about six weeks from now, Syrians all across the country are going to go the polls to elect their new leader. That is, except for the over 150,000 people killed and millions who have fled the country as refugees - they won't be voting, but the show must go on. The United Nations has suggested to Syria that it avoid having elections during a civil war. It is unlikely there will be any significant challenger (though a puppet challenger may be brought in). Why even go through the trouble? It is not really all that possible to gloss over this kind of electoral travesty.

From Albania to Norway, and everywhere in between

The saga of Syria's chemical weapons continues. It took ages to get Syria to admit to using banned weapons (though Syria never signed the ban) on its own population during the civil war. Now, with much work done, the question of how to dispose of and destroy the weapons remains unanswered.

It was originally thought that a neutral nation would allow the careful and systematic destruction of chemical weapons on its soil by a competent team of experts. Clearly, this assumption has proven naive. The NIMBY (not in my backyard) complex is extremely strong when it comes to sensitive topics such as chemical weapons. And with 1,300 tons of weapons to destroy, this is no simple or quick task.

Although a proponent of peaceful resolution in Syria and the destruction of the chemical weapons, Norway was first to say no. A flurry of other European nations have followed suit, including Germany, France, Albania, and, last but not least, Belgium. Neither Russia nor the U.S. are willing to do the dirty work (U.S. law, in fact, prohibits this). It seems, that no one may be willing.

Now, the weapons may be dismantled and destroyed at sea. This is a risky operation, though technically possible. It would involve significant precautions and security. More unsteady is the logistics of setting up this operation. Nonetheless, it may be the only option.

Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today

The disaster that is Syria continues to unfold and capture the world's attention. The United States, led by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, have begun to use some of the harshest rhetoric of late in describing the calamity there in a bid to garner political support for military action against Syria. The trigger, late in coming, is the all-but certain use of chemical weapons. It is questionable whether the trigger may be too late.

Before touting the latest news, it is important to recognize that this chemical attack would be only the latest atrocity in a civil war that has dragged on and has been ignored. The Economist wrote an excellent piece on the disintegration of Syria as a nation-state and its impact on regional and international affairs back in February of 2013. For a conflict that has already lasted years, the question that certainly arises is: why now? what makes this so different?

Is this the unthinkable? No - there were chemical weapons atrocities throughout the twentieth century, and even during the Syrian Civil War reports as far back as early this year suggested chemical weapons use. In fact, a response in Syria would be the first of its kind, following the Chemical Weapons Convention (of which Syria is not a signatory).This latest attack was simply too public and too brazen to ignore is the line of thinking.

Is the scale of Syria Civil War unprecedented? This is certainly arguable. This is Homs this year:

                                          (Source: Daily Mail)

Meanwhile, this is Hama in 1982:

                                          (Source: Wikipedia)

Recent United Nations reports also point to an approximate two million refugees and massive camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. An addition four million are internally displaced, though this gets much less news much like internally displaced persons get much fewer rights than refugees. While the scale in terms of the total population is much higher, the overall scale is not much different from the Democratic Republic of Congo civil war. This is an all-out war. Whoever wins, it will take decades to rebuild Syria.

What has happened, and what often happens in these situations, is that the entire conflict has largely been ignored from the foreign policy of Western nations. Countries and international institutions have noted their opinions, counted the dead, but not acted. The reality is that no one wants to repeat Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the US has likely eliminated any considerations of infantry use for the foreseeable future. It is unsurprising that a significant part of the US plan involves improving the Syrian resistance. In itself, this is problematic, with portions of the Syrian resistance being directly affiliates with al Qaeda. Meanwhile, Pentagon estimates suggest it would take 75,000 troops to control the ground in Syria.

None of this paints a pretty picture (nor is it meant to). Is action in Syria needed? Probably. Would it have been more useful months and months ago? Probably. The question now is most certainly - what kind of response will occur. Will it drive Assad out of power, or will it simply lead to a repeat of the two Gulf Wars?


Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria)

What has transpired in Syria over the past few years can only be described in two ways: both as a tragedy and as an embarrassment. A tragedy because a country pining for freedom has been devastated by war and devastation while its citizens huddle into refugee camps or are killed as collateral damage. An embarrassment because the world has stood by with covered eyes and ears, limiting any aid that may cut short the conflict, and just imagining a magical solution will help it end. And all because of politics - because Russia is still supportive of Assad, because Syria has limited natural resources, because no one wants to be performing regime change...

It seems that over the past six months or so, the conflict has crossed a broad, invisible line that will separate it from the level of medium-term resolvable (like the Balkans) to long-term potentially resolvable (like the Democratic Republic of Congo). This is also a line that separates the points where those inside the country can be trusted to where they cannot. The Syrian Civil War has arguably crossed that threshold.

Most evidently, the animosity and ferocity only continues to increase. Reports and videos circulate of (among other things) a rebel eating the heart of a government soldier, biochemical weapons use by both rebels and the government, and executions of prisoners of war, Meanwhile, the line the in sand that the United States drew regarding biochemical weapons use has turned to nothing more than a mirage, with reports as early as March, and more recent (and confirmed) reports being treated not as a reason to act now, but as a reason to investigate further. A vacuum of leadership is becoming ever more evident.

At this point, the likelihood that anyone in Syria currently on either side is a feasible post-conflict leader is questionable. Neither side can really be trusted to take charge and rule fairly and honestly. Moreover, the window that may have existed to tilt the balance may have closed long ago. Perhaps nothing short of a costly ground force, in human and physical terms, will change the current conflict path - and such an event is not likely to happen. Instead, the can is being kicked down the road, and another generation will wonder why a powder keg was allowed to ignite so easily and with such devastating consequences.

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD

Are they or aren't they? And who is they - the government or the rebels? The only known known, as Donald Rumsfeld would eloquently put it, is that the mess in Syria is turning into a quagmire.

Rumblings of chemical WMD use in the Syrian conflict are not new. New images seem to strongly suggest that conventional weapons are not solely in play. Moreover, American intelligence affirms this position and indicates that sarin has been used, but on a small scale (Syria denies this American "lie"). Unfortunately, as with previous evidence, it doesn't seem that any country, with the United States in particular, is really willing to do anything about it other than utilize euphemisms for further investigation and delayed action. In a sense, the United States is saying that there's evidence, but not clear-cut proof. Figure that?

It seems that the line in the sand, which seemed so clear in the past based on American statements, has blurred with the wind. Given recent history and even considering older military history (dating as far back as World War I), the United States is visibly shaken by the potential problems of confronting chemical weapons militarily. While those weapons pose significant threat to Americans, putting soldiers on the ground to eliminate them seems to be a line in itself. It seems doubtful that in all this time, no special force has been organized and trained to tackle such an obvious concern.

Despite all this, it is time to take a position, whether it be showing force (regional deployment) or showing presence (drones). Something must be done. Or will the world stand by as another civil war drags months into years and death and destruction into the everyday? Just in the past few decades, the world watched Somalia, Congo, and Yugoslavia - do we really need another example? Where are the massive protests about inaction? Where is the public outcry? It seems that the Syrian conflict's human toll has gone overlooked in the face of political calculations.

It's important to remember that sometimes the war we try to avoid is the war that drags us in. Perhaps we can truly preempt such a calamity by taking a stance now and beginning to end the madness.

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons

President Obama's visit to Israel this week would be an excellent opportunity for some serious, evenhanded discussion on what's going on in Syria. In fact, the President should pull in  his national security team and ask Benjamin Netanyahu to do the same. Frankly, the testy relationship between the two leaders is reflected in the countries' differing statements on Syria's use of chemical weapons.

See, the Israelis are affirming reports that Syria has begun to use chemical weapons. The Syrians, of course, blame it on the rebels. As does Russia. The United States, however, is not so sure and is not jumping to any conclusions so quickly. In fact, the United States is "deeply skeptical," which of course sits none too well with Russia and Syria, who are demanding an investigation.

What seems likely is that someone used a chemical (or biological) agent of some sort. Given the levels of frustration and the severity of factions in rebel forces, it is impossible to rule out rebel use, perhaps even to attempt to trigger larger retaliation. President Obama's line in the sand will perhaps turn out to be a moving target. Does it truly mean only if government forces use them? Do dirty agents count, or only official ones? All these questions gloss over the point - the line in the sand is meant to protect the people. If anyone uses chemical agents to any extent, the line has been crossed. Moreover, continuous retreat is seen as a sign of weakness in the region (as well as elsewhere). One must hold their ground if resolution is truly a desired result. Lastly, the relationship between the United States and Israel could further be strained if they are unable to agree on the events and repercussions of those events in Syria, much like how the relationship has been strained over Iran.

Therefore, the time for action, on some level, is on the horizon. Even nominal air support, with drones perhaps, would indicate that the United States' position is firm and the line in the sand doesn't move with the wind. Such action will, in time, bring Syria closer to resolution, as well as likely continue to repair the relationship with Israel. It is not the time to let technicalities get in the way.