In August-September 2013 Obama came within inches of going to war against Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. Ultimately the US President pulled back when his intelligence services told him the idea sarin poison gas was deployed by Assad was “not a slam dunk”.
This was a direct reference to the case for war with Iraq in 2003 when CIA put its reputation on the line to get the invasion going only to see a disastrous war be blamed on “intelligence failure”. This time around intelligence services were not going to be left holding the bag.
In fact the 2013 sarin attack was, as was reported by the legendary reporter Seymour Hersh, a false flag attack by the Syrian opposition, probably aided by Turkey.
In response Syria committed in a Russian-brokered deal to give up its entire chemical weapons stockpile which was accomplished by June 2014.
And yet here we are in February 2017 with Trump’s USA leading the charge to condemn and sanction Syria for more alleged chemical weapons attacks. How is that possible?
A UN report from October last year claims the Syrian army dropped “chlorine barrel bombs” on two opposition-held villages in April 2014 and March 2015. Russia questions the findings saying the investigation was a political witch hunt, and the Syrian government points out the report is backed only by witnesses produced by the opposition.
Chlorine is an incredibly useful substance so it is not actually banned. However it is also incredibly common so that the government has ample access to it, but so does the opposition.
Moreover while in gas form it can be used as a weapon it isn’t a particularly good one. Used on a small scale in a couple of barrel bombs alone it is virtually useless.
Chlorine gas forms a dense greenish cloud which stays near the ground. Used on a vast scale (hundreds of tons) it could be used poison troops sheltering in deep-lying trenches. Releasing a couple of cannisters on a village out in the open however, is less effective than just dropping a conventional explosive device.
So the UN narrative makes no sense at all. Why would Syria — after it narrowly avoided an attack by US in 2013 over a chemical weapons incident — continue to deploy a chemical agent in isolated incidents and tiny quantities certain to have no effect on the battlefield situation but that are just enough to contradict Assad’s vow not to use chemical weapons against the opposition?
The upshot is not just tiny, it is non-existent. The downside however is massive.
It is ridiculous. How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime? People have died by being suffocated to death. That’s barbaric.
So what we’re going to do is – we were given all these reasons on why we shouldn’t propose the resolution. We were given all these reasons on why the timing was wrong. That is exactly why the timing is right. That is exactly why this resolution needs to happen.
Whether people are going to veto it or not, you are either for chemical weapons or you’re against it. People died because of this, and the United States isn’t going to be quiet. Thank you.
In a vote later today Russia is going to shoot down Haley’s proposed resolution that Syria be sanctioned by 193 UN members over her claim that Syrians would be so stupid as to invite sanctions, bombing and invasion for no appreciable gain.
On other hand if Haley sincerely believes this, as she seems to, is she delusional or just extraordinarily dumb? It’s one thing to think Assad is an evil dictator. It’s quite another to believe he is as brain-dead as a vegetable.
Or maybe she’s just smart enough to know what she has to say to increase and advance her profile.