Jason Ditz / AntiWar.com & Hannah Allam and Mark Seibel / McClatchy – 2013-09-03 01:33:38
US Sticking to Flimsy Narrative
To Push Syria War
Jason Ditz / AntiWar.com
(September 2, 2013) –The US narrative justifying their planned attack on Syria hinges on an array of circumstantial evidence. In essence, they argue that since Syria has chemical weapons and there was exposure to some sort of chemicals, it must’ve been a chemical weapon attack.
There’s no proof in there, if one studies the Obama Administration’s case, and the desperation with which they’ve fought against UN inspections suggests they are fully aware, despite the pretense of their case being indisputable, that it could fall apart quickly.
As Secretary of State John Kerry sees his arguments being rejected, he keeps adding new pieces to the story, a bad liar who doesn’t know when to give up. He’s now equated Assad to Hitler multiple times, claiming the US knew three days in advance about the attack, and put the death toll at exactly 1,429.
Each of those claims is another red flag about this story, raising questions on why the US, which “knew” about the putative attack in advance, did nothing to warn anyone, and why the US death toll is many-fold larger than any presented by human rights groups, and even those of other nations looking to sell the war.
The Hitler analogy is perhaps the laziest attempt at warmongering, an attempt at replacing evidence they just flat out don’t have with hysterical rhetoric. Though it’s liable to make the war’s advocates (who by and large advocate any war on any pretext) all the more shrill, it’s hard to see how it will convince anyone of the merits of their case.
Antiwar.com urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria. Click here for contract information.
To Some, US Case for
Syrian Gas Attack and Need for Strike
Has Too Many Holes
Hannah Allam and Mark Seibel / McClatchy Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (September 2, 2013) — The Obama administration’s public case for attacking Syria is riddled with inconsistencies and hinges mainly on circumstantial evidence, undermining US efforts this week to build support at home and abroad for a punitive strike against Bashar Assad’s regime.
The case Secretary of State John Kerry laid out last Friday contained claims that were disputed by the United Nations, inconsistent in some details with British and French intelligence reports or lacking sufficient transparency for international chemical weapons experts to accept at face value.
After the false weapons claims preceding the US-led invasion of Iraq, the threshold for evidence to support intervention is exceedingly high. And while there’s little dispute that a chemical agent was used in an Aug. 21 attack outside of Damascus — and probably on a smaller scale before that — there are calls from many quarters for independent, scientific evidence to support the US narrative that the Assad regime used sarin gas in an operation that killed 1,429 people, including more than 400 children.
Some of the US points in question:
The Obama administration dismissed the value of a UN inspection team’s work by saying that the investigators arrived too late for the findings to be credible and wouldn’t provide any information the United State didn’t already have.
UN spokesman Farhan Haq countered that it was “rare” for such an investigation to begin within such a short time and said that “the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples,” according to the UN’s website. For example, Haq added, sarin can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use.
The US claims that sarin was used in the Aug. 21 attack, citing a positive test on first responders’ hair and blood — samples “that were provided to the United States,” Kerry said on television Sunday without elaboration on the collection methods.
Experts say the evidence deteriorates over time, but that it’s simply untrue that there wouldn’t be any value in an investigation five days after an alleged attack. As a New York Times report noted, two human rights groups dispatched a forensics team to northern Iraq in 1992 and found trace evidence of sarin as well as mustard gas — four years after a chemical attack.
The US assertion also was disputed in an intelligence summary the British government made public last week. “There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological samples would have degraded beyond usefulness,” according to the report, which was distributed to Parliament ahead of its vote not to permit Britain to participate in any strike.
Another point of dispute is the death toll from the alleged attacks on Aug. 21. Neither Kerry’s remarks nor the unclassified version of the US intelligence he referenced explained how the US reached a tally of 1,429, including 426 children. The only attribution was “a preliminary government assessment.”
Anthony Cordesman, a former senior defense official who’s now with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, took aim at the death toll discrepancies in an essay published Sunday.
He criticized Kerry as being “sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number” of 1,429, and noted that the number didn’t agree with either the British assessment of “at least 350 fatalities” or other Syrian opposition sources, namely the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has confirmed 502 dead, including about 100 children and “tens” of rebel fighters, and has demanded that Kerry provide the names of the victims included in the US tally.
“President Obama was then forced to round off the number at ‘well over 1,000 people’ — creating a mix of contradictions over the most basic facts,” Cordesman wrote. He added that the blunder was reminiscent of “the mistakes the US made in preparing Secretary (Colin) Powell’s speech to the UN on Iraq in 2003.”
An unclassified version of a French intelligence report on Syria that was released Monday hardly cleared things up; France confirmed only 281 fatalities, though it more broadly agreed with the United States that the regime had used chemical weapons in the Aug. 21 attack.
Another eyebrow-raising administration claim was that US intelligence had “collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence” that showed the regime preparing for an attack three days before the event. The US assessment says regime personnel were in an area known to be used to “mix chemical weapons, including sarin,” and that regime forces prepared for the Aug. 21 attack by putting on gas masks.
That claim raises two questions: Why didn’t the US warn rebels about the impending attack and save hundreds of lives? And why did the administration keep mum about the suspicious activity when on at least one previous occasion US officials have raised an international fuss when they observed similar actions?
On Dec. 3, 2012, after US officials said they detected Syria mixing ingredients for chemical weapons, President Barack Obama repeated his warning to Assad that the use of such arms would be an unacceptable breach of the red line he’d imposed that summer. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chimed in, and the United Nations withdrew all nonessential staff from Syria.
Last month’s suspicious activity, however, wasn’t raised publicly until after the deadly attack. And Syrian opposition figures say the rebels weren’t warned in advance in order to protect civilians in the area.
“When I read the administration’s memo, it was very compelling, but they knew three days before the attack and never alerted anyone in the area,” said Radwan Ziadeh, a Syrian opposition activist who runs the Washington-based Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies. “Everyone was watching this evidence but didn’t take any action?”
Among chemical weapons experts and other analysts who’ve closely studied the Syrian battlefield, the main reservation about the US claims is that there’s no understanding of the methodology behind the intelligence-gathering. They say that the evidence presented points to the use of some type of chemical agent, but say that there are still questions as to how the evidence was collected, the integrity of the chain of custody of such samples, and which laboratories were involved.
Eliot Higgins, a British chronicler of the Syrian civil war who writes the Brown Moses blog, a widely cited repository of information on the weapons observed on the Syrian battlefield, wrote a detailed post Monday listing photographs and videos that would seem to support US claims that the Assad regime has possession of munitions that could be used to deliver chemical weapons. But he wouldn’t make the leap.
On the blog, Higgins asked: “How do we know these are chemical weapons? That’s the thing, we don’t. As I’ve said all along, these are munitions linked to alleged chemical attacks, not chemical munitions used in chemical attacks. It’s ultimately up to the UN to confirm if chemical weapons were used.”
Holes in the case already have allowed Russia to dismiss the US evidence as “inconclusive,” with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying in a speech Monday that Moscow was shown “some sketches, but there was nothing concrete, no geographical coordinates, or details…and no proof the test was done by professionals,” according to the state-backed RT news agency.
“When we ask for further clarification, we receive the following response: ‘you are aware that this is classified information, therefore we cannot show it to you,'” Lavrov said. “So there are still no facts.”
Lavrov’s remarks signaled that Russia, one of the last Assad allies, was nowhere near being convinced enough stop its repeated blocking of UN Security Council resolutions targeting the regime.
But there’s also skepticism among US-friendly nations, such as Jordan, which declined to endorse action until it studies the findings of a UN chemical weapons investigation, and the United Kingdom, where Parliament voted against intervention even before the US released an intelligence assessment that contradicted one released a day before by British authorities.
It’s unclear how much a factor the evidence was in Parliament’s decisions; there’s also a high degree of wariness of any US-led intervention after the Iraq experience.
The US did get a boost Monday from the commander of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who told a news conference he’d seen “concrete information” that convinced him of the Assad regime’s responsibility for an apparent chemical attack that killed hundreds of people in August.
Rasmussen said it would send a “dangerous signal to dictators” if the world didn’t respond, but he left it up to NATO nations to decide their own responses and didn’t advocate action beyond protecting member state Turkey, which borders Syria.
US allies across the Arab world and Europe have said they prefer delaying any potential military strikes until after the UN inspection team releases its findings. The UN mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons were used, but not to assign culpability. UN officials have said they’re trying to expedite the inspection team’s work while protecting the integrity of the process.
Jonathan Landay in Amman, Jordan, Matthew Schofield in Berlin and Special Correspondent Mitchell Prothero in Beirut contributed.
Kerry Likens Assad to Hitler, Claims ‘Proof’ of Sarin Use
Jason Ditz / AntiWar.com
(September 1, 2013) — Selling Syrian President Bashar Assad as a big enough villain to be worth sending the US military forth to slay is going pretty straightforwardly like it always does, with Secretary of State John Kerry explicitly likening the Syrian ruler to Adolf Hitler.
Kerry insisted Assad, in having been accused of using chemical weapons, “joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein who have used these weapons in time of war.” Kerry explicitly qualified it as post-1925 to avoid cluttering the list with literally everybody involved in World War 1 and subsequent fights over the next several years, including repeated uses by British forces.
Kerry went on to claim that the US had conducted tests that proved that the victims of the Jobar Incident were exposed to sarin, insisting that it was obviously the Assad government’s doing.
Yet sarin has also been put forward as a chemical weapon of choice for Islamist rebel factions, both by those factions bragging about their ability to produce it and the UN saying there was strong evidence that the rebels had used it against Syrian troops in the spring.
Either way, the UN has not issued its findings on the samples it has taken, and is not expected to do so for at least another week or two. The US evidence was not able to be independently verified.
Antiwar.com urges all readers to contact their Congressmen and urge them to vote against attacking Syria.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.
