Bad chemistry

Regular readers will have noticed that I am not overly exercised about the risk of Syrian use of chemical weapons.  There are a number of reasons why I think the press hype about this is excessive, though obviously it is a legitimate international concern.  I agree with those who say we should warn Syria explicitly that use of chemical weapons will cross a redline and precipitate an external military intervention.  I just don’t think the Syrians are likely that dumb.

Why?  First, because use of chemical weapons really would be likely to precipitate intervention, including by the U.S.  The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which includes 188 states notes:

Syria is not a Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and hence is not legally committed to the Convention’s prohibitions against the development, production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons. Therefore, the OPCW currently has no legal mandate to conduct inspections in the country to verify the possible existence of chemical weapons or related activities.

Conversely, Syria is a party to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which bans the use of chemical and bacteriological methods of warfare. It ratified the Protocol in 1968 without reservations, except for the proviso that the protocol did not represent recognition of Israel. Thus, Syria has formally renounced both first and retaliatory use of chemical or biological weapons against any State.

The prohibition on use of chemical weapons is by now so deeply engrained that only the most heinous pariah states are even suspected of planning to use them, as Saddam Hussein notoriously did against the Iraqi Kurds in 1988 and against Iranian forces before then.  That did not precipitate international intervention, but there are lots of people who wish it had.

Syria’s announcement, quickly retracted, that it would use chemical weapons only against foreigners is bozotic (look it up–good word!).  If there is ever foreign intervention in Syria, it is far more likely to be from the air than on the ground.  In any case, American ground troops come equipped for defense against chemical weapons, which seemed a real possibility in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  It isn’t fun to wear the equipment required in 110 degree heat, but our troops can and do if necessary.

I have my doubts that the Syrian troops asked to use chemical weapons would feel confident the equipment provided would prevent the stuff from felling them all.  Nor can I think of anything more likely than a chemical attack to precipitate a mass uprising aimed at tearing Bashar al Asad limb from limb.

The only overt foreign military intervention we are seeing in Syria so far is by Russia and Iran, both of which are supporting the regime.  Iran declined to use chemical weapons even after Saddam Hussein had used them against Iranian forces during the Iran/Iraq war.  That may have been a reflection of their utility as well as moral revulsion.  The Russians, already on the wrong side of history in Syria, are not likely to want their putative allies crossing an international community redline.

It is true of course that you can kill a lot of people quickly with chemical weapons.  What you can’t do is control whom they kill.  Bashar al Asad is already in the 100-200 people per day range.  He could well boost his totals to 1000 per day, but it would likely do his cause little good.

The chemical weapons talk seems to me more a sign of desperation, and over-estimation of the likelihood of foreign military intervention, than serious military planning.  But if I am wrong–rumint suggests that bad people are being trained to use the stuff–I will not be surprised if someone decides to strike hard and long against not just the chemical weapons but also against the command and control structure that orders them used.

We’ve got other things to worry about in the meanwhile:  the Syrian air force has sent its fighters into action against the rebellion in Aleppo.  This is in addition to the frequent use of helicopters in recent weeks.  I’m not a big fan of no-fly zones, which require a lot of military action to achieve a marginal result.  But I’m not a fan at all of aircraft targeting civilians.  Once again I’d rather see it taken out on the command and control, not on the pilots.