Syria is preparing chemical weapons:
What exactly the Syrian forces intend to do with the weapons remains murky, according to officials who have seen the intelligence from Syria. One American official provided the most specific description yet of what has been detected, saying that “the activity we are seeing suggests some potential chemical weapon preparation,” which goes beyond the mere movement of stockpiles among Syria’s several dozen known sites. But the official declined to offer more specifics of what those preparations entailed.
Well, a couple weeks ago I figured we were at the end of the beginning and only trying to figure out when the beginning of the end starts. A string of rebel victories lately indicates that the transition is about to or already has begun. So what would chemical weapons have to do with that?
Syria could be bluffing use to get Western powers to back off from intervening. But that could backfire and prompt more support for rebels. And a bluff doesn't change the fact that Assad's forces are crumbling and vulnerable to collapse at any moment. Of course, Assad might not believe his forces are crumbling and vulnerable to collapse at any moment.
Syria could be preparing to use chemical weapons on rebel-held population centers. But that could backfire and prompt direct Turkish and Western intervention. Once troops go in, could Assad be sure that chemical weapons depots are the narrow target rather than his regime? Plus, that would truly raise the stakes and possibly make this a war of extermination against the Alawites if the Assad forces fail to win. But Assad's people could convince themselves that this would work given the alternative of simply slowly losing.
Syria could be preparing to move some of the weapons to new sites within a Rump Syria of the Alawite coastal region (plus perhaps an inland buffer zone out to the Aleppo-to-Damascus highway). To me, this seems like the most rational explanation
Chemical weapons in firing readiness could be to cover the retreat of Assad's forces if the rebels pursue too closely or too effectively and guard against a collapse in morale because of the retreat. Knowing chemical weapons are ready, troop morale might survive. Or if it does not, use of chemical weapons might buy time to restore morale.
Actually, leaving a lot of the chemical depots sitting there with some chemical weapons vulnerable to seizure by rebels would be a way for Assad to get Western powers (including Turkey) into Syria to exercise some control over the rebels or at least spark fighting between the Western troops and the jihadi rebels. Either might buy time for Assad to consolidate his smaller realm.
Plus, might Assad grab a chunk of northern Lebanon to add to his realm? Or, to avoid directly challenging the UN by changing an international border, perhaps seek influence there via proxies as Hezbollah does in southern Lebanon?
I still think Assad could use a battalion of marines and a regiment of paratroopers from Russia to bolster loyalist morale in a small Alawite state and deter Western forces from pursuing regime destruction by pushing into an Alawite rump state.
But my rational isn't Assad's rational, needless to say. And retreating to a smaller realm is something I've figured Assad needs to do. Since last winter, I've contracted what I think he could hold given attrition in his ranks, but the general concept holds.
Plus failure to start contracting at the beginning of the year means that moving loyal population into the borders of a rump Alawite state won't be well organized and could turn into a humanitarian disaster. The logistics of doing this were never going to be easy, even with planning. But now? Uh oh, even without chemical weapons use.
If Assad transfers Syria's capital to Latakia, I guess we'll know for sure.
UPDATE: Syria denies plans to use the weapons after we warn them not to use them:
Syria said on Monday it would not use chemical weapons against its own people after the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Washington would take action against any such escalation.
Which makes me think that Assad has no interest in using the weapons. Not that Assad has a lot of credibility. But I imagine the Obama administration wouldn't have warned Assad not to do something that the administration thinks Assad might do.
UPDATE: Thoughts on possible chemical weapons use. Initial use could be clumsy. When Iraq initially used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War, they gassed their own troops as they fired the heavier-than-air agents at enemy troops higher up a mountain. In addition, chemical weapons have to be fired in a fairly dense cloud to be effective. In truth, based on past experience, chemical weapons are less lethal than traditional means of killing.
And it makes it difficult for your own troops to operate in contaminated areas. Are Assad's forces really trained well enough to do that? I doubt it.
But it is a terrifying weapon, more so than shells or bullets or bombs. Whether it terrifies Sunni rebels into submission or just makes this a fight to the death is the question.
