Chemical warfare turns Syrian conflict alarming
After two years of mindless violence and umpteen massacres, one assumed that the situation in Syria could get no worse. But the worst seems to have happened as reports of a major chemical attack pour in. The mountain of evidence that has emerged since Wednesday is hard to ignore. Photos and video footage show dozens of bodies, including those of children, with no visible signs of injuries, while others show victims having convulsions and breathing troubles treated at makeshift hospitals. Experts say these symptoms indicate that some incapacitating chemical agent was used, but that is all. Meanwhile, allegations and counter-allegations fly thick and fast. Syrian Opposition activists blame the Bashar al-Assad regime (which has undeclared stockpiles of chemical weapons) for the attack that was carried out in the rebel stronghold of Ghouta, while the Syrian Government accuses the rebels. There is no way to ascertain the truth as both the Al Qaeda-infested Opposition and the Assad regime are equally capable of carrying out such an attack. Some have pointed out that there are no confirmed reports of the rebels accessing chemical weapons; others have noted that the timing is suspicious since UN monitors are currently in Syria investigating previous claims of a chemical attack. That this could be a well-staged Opposition gimmick cannot be ruled out, just as there is no denying that if President Assad did order the attack, it fits perfectly into his fighting strategy. First, the regime has consistently wiped out entire populations in Opposition-held areas (instead of just targeting fighters) so that the rebels lose even when they gain ground. Second, it has always gradually scaled up attacks so as not to attract Western intervention. Each time, the Assad regime introduced a more potent weapon, it did so first on a small scale; when it did not evoke a Western backlash, it was expanded to target larger populations. This was the case with the use of heavy weapons, then air fire, and the ballistic missiles. Claims of the use of chemical weapons have followed a similar pattern: Since March, there have been intermittent reports of such attacks but only a handful of victims have reportedly died, and the West has issued empty threats.
The question is: Will Wednesday's attack that has claimed an estimated 1,300 lives be the game-changer. The Obama Administration had said that the use of chemical weapons is the ‘red line', crossing which the Assad regime will be faced with Western military intervention. However, given Washington, DC's insipid response — it only asked for a UN investigation — a Gaddafi-style offensive against President Assad any time soon is unlikely. Also, President Obama, weighed down by the Afghan war, is wary of repeating the mistake his predecessor made in Iraq. He knows that removing President Assad will do nothing to solve Syria's problem, because there is no credible alternative to fill the space.