The similarities between Syria's chemical weapons and Iraq's WMDs

So now it looks like Barack Obama has stepped back from war with Syria. In his address to the nation which only days ago had been intended to try to sell a war with Syria to the American public, Obama instead confirmed that he would pursue the Russian brokered peace plan. Diplomatic rather than military options are to be used to try to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control. Nevertheless the possibility of war has not been ruled out - Obama stated that the US military would "maintain its current posture," and once again invoked the death of 1400 people in a chemical weaponsattack in a suburb of Damascus as a justification. But how sure can we be that the Assad regime really is guilty of killing civilians with chemical weapons?

In an article in the Asia Times, historian and journalist specialising in US national security policy Gareth Porter argues that the "intelligence" behind the chemical weapons claim is highly questionable. Obama's case for military intervention in Syria hinges on the widely circulated allegation that "1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children''. Porter states that there is no source for this figure. The number of casualties is also several times higher than estimates held by British and French intelligence.

So what is the source of information behind the chemical weapons allegation? According to Portas, "the White House selected those elements of the intelligence community assessments that supported the administration's policy of planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those that didn't." The key document in question entitled "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013'' was in fact released by the White House press secretary rather than the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. 

The title of the document speaks volumes - is this a government report or an intelligence report? Former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research Greg Thielmann asked "if it's an intelligence assessment why didn't they label it as such?" DNI James Clapper has refused to endorse the report. It sounds like yet another "dodgy dossier" and Iraq all over again. Another war with a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on doctored "intelligence."

And the similarities with Iraq don't end there. The Obama administration has made it clear that it would be prepared to intervene without a UN resolution. Once again an American government is prepared to start a war with a country which poses no threat to its own security, to flout international law and to ignore the lack of support both at home and abroad. The BRICS group of emerging economies - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa voiced their opposition to military intervention without UN approval at a G20 summit last week. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's comment on recent developments was "if the [Syrian] regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control as was suggested by Secretary Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step. But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction." In other words, war can't be ruled out even if the Assad regime complies fully with the UN in giving up its chemical weapons stockpiles. 

Once again an American government is prepared to go to war based on a dubious claim to be upholding international human rights. As John Pilger points out in the Guardian today, Obama's condemnation of Assad reeks of hypocrisy and historical amnesia given the US usage of napalm in Vietnam, white phosphorous in Iraq and drones today. Meanwhile the fact that Saudi Arabia is a key backer of the Syrian rebels and would-be partner in a war on Assad shows that Washington is still happy to work with highly unsavoury regimes to further its own agendas. 

Obama has stressed war with Syria "would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan." But who exactly are the members of the Free Syria Army? Secretary of State John Kerry estimates that "hardcore Islamist fighters account for only some 15% of the rebel army." The removal of Assad's regime would likely plunge Syria into civil war, with various extremist factions fighting for power. In other words, it could well be Iraq or Afghanistan all over again. As Slavoj Zizek put it, "will the US repeat their Afghanistan mistake of arming the future al-Qaida and Taliban cadres?"

We can only hope that the plan to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control succeeds, and that Syria's similarities with Iraq and Afghanistan end before a military intervention takes place. But even if there is no war with Syria, it is terrifying that the Obama administration has come this close.