There is a lot going on right now regarding Syria and our government's seeming desire to do something. We have some anecdotal evidence of a purported gas attack that occurred in Syria, evidence that experts say prove that sarin gas attacks occurred. The UN is preparing an investigation but was stopped with sniper fire. Right now there is a lack of independent confirmation, however Doctors Without Borders has issued a statement:
"The reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events -- characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers -- strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent," said Dr. Bart Janssens, director of operations.
Source: Cnn.com
Circumstantially, it would appear that a chemical weapons attack was used in the Ghouta region of Syria. Statements by people within Syria, including medical doctors, and images of the dead certainly strengthen the case for a chemical gas attack.
It seems that the acceptance of the use of chemical gas attacks is merely a formality at this point. What has not been established is who actually performed these attacks. Was it the Syrian government who gas suburbs of the capital city? What about the rebels? They are alleged to have already carried out chemical attacks in the past.
Two questions remain: who did this and what shall we do about it?
President Obama has proposed cruise missile strikes in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons. But what level of an attack, and what targets are still held closely to this administrations collective chests. An attack that disables Assad's military or economic capacity will greatly aid rebel forces. The problem with this is that the rebel forces are a shaky coalition of the Free Syrian Army and other, smaller rebel forces including the Jabhat al-Nusra which has publicly aligned itself with al-Qaeda. In the previously linked article it is reported:
[al-]Nusra is now officially considered a "terrorist" organisation by the US State Department.
When it became clear the Syrian uprising of 2011 would devolve into war, many of these experienced fighters in Iraq came to Syria, the report says, with the goal of overthrowing Assad and establishing an Islamic caliphate in the Levant.
Their main tactics are reflective of their training in asymmetric warfare in Iraq - car bombs, suicide missions, and the targeting of security forces.
Our intervention in
Afghanistan in the 1980s led to the recruitment and training of Osama bin Laden and the eventual foundation of the Taliban. This led to some incredible blowback that affects us to this day. Cruise missile strikes against Assad's regime will certainly aid the rebels, a portion of whom are aligned with terrorists. This information must play a prominent role in any calculus that includes cruise missile attacks.
If the attacks proceed, and Assad's regime is toppled, the likely result is increased civil war because of the resulting power vacuum. The FSA has been accused of being an impediment to al-Nusra's stated goals of forming an Islamic state. Many rebel groups are not only jihadis in nature, but driven by sectarian divisions. From another Al-Jazeera article:
Some of his colleagues, like Abu Mustafa, of Ansar al-Din, used a broader brush. "The war in Syria is ideological," he said. "Let's be honest. It's sectarian, and it's civil. It’s us against the Alawites." He didn't have a problem with the Druze or Christians, he said, because they were neutral. "But if somebody, whether Sunni or Christian, stands with the regime, he is our enemy. And the Alawites are all with the regime, so they are all our enemy."
It is possible to conclude that intensified fighting followed by the fall of Assad's regime could lead to ethnic cleansing. There are even fears that this civil war could spread into a regional conflict, especially given Syria's proximity to Israel, Hezbollah's involvement in the conflict, 500,000 Syrian refuges in Lebanon, and
threatening statements by Iran:
"America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House," said Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, reacting to statements by Western officials regarding the possibility of military intervention in Syria.
The way forward is as clear as the Mississippi River and the consequences for action are very high. With no clear allies, lack of international approval for action, and rebel groups classified as terrorist organization by our own State Department, it would appear that cruise missile attacks would not be in anyone's favor except for al-Nusra's. That is why it is my belief that UN verification of who used the chemical weapons and UN approval of multilateral action is the best of many truly terrible options.