The videos are heart-wrenching
to watch: a young boy, screaming and crying with other children in the street
while bodies lie around them. A young man convulses uncontrollably, while
others are sprawled in the halls of what appears to be an overwhelmed medical
clinic; some still shake and show signs of life, others are clearly dead. In
what has become a hallmark of videos of massacres in Syria, makeshift morgues
lined with scores of corpses leave no doubt that a massive attack has taken
place. The surviving victims display many of the hallmark symptoms of sarin gas
exposure: convulsions, foaming at the mouth, and dilated pupils, and the scale
of the casualties only add weight to this conjecture.
Videos
of the attack today in the Ghouta region east of Damascus killing hundreds of
civilians will test the United States’ ability to stay out of the two-year-old
civil war in Syria. Opposition leaders have already pointed their fingers at
beleaguered president and war criminal Bashar al-Asad. US Pres. Barack Obama
has previously listed chemical attacks as a “red line” that, if crossed, would
automatically trigger American intervention. Yet despite confirming that it had
“conclusive evidence” of such an attack in June, the government has yet to
deliver the promised military aid to rebel groups. The amount of footage from
today’s alleged attack makes it difficult to dispute that something horrific
has taken place in Ghouta, yet there is little reason to believe a Western
response will go much further than rhetoric and promises of aid.
The
Asad regime denies that such an attack took place – and if it did, the
government insists that it was at the hands of the opposition. There is, for
once, good reason to be suspicious of the attack: it took place just a few miles
from where the United Nations chemical weapons inspection team is staying in
Damascus, after having arrived in Syria on Sunday. It seems counterintuitive
that Asad would order an attack on a location that can be so easily and
immediately accessed by UN inspectors, especially so soon after their arrival. The
Asad regime has also been winning important battles using conventional methods,
and there seems to be no good strategic reason that it would shift tactics now.
In the chemical weapons attacks earlier this summer, evidence pointed not only
to the regime’s use of sarin, but also to likely rebel use against government
forces. Both groups claim the other is trying to frame them, and both may be
right. If this is the case in Ghouta, then rebel groups murdered hundreds of
their own supporters in order to gain Western support in the seemingly
never-ending war against Asad, an unthinkable action.
A man lays an infant to rest among scores of victims. Courtesy AP. |
Then
again, the Asad regime could be growing increasingly confident that even if the
UN team confirms the use of sarin, Western governments will still stay out of
the Syrian civil war. Asad is many things, but an idiot isn’t one of them; he
can sense as well as anyone else American and European reluctance to get
involved in what would be a messy intervention, at a cost of billions of
dollars to their already unbalanced budgets, not to mention on the side of
rebels who may or may not end up supporting Western interests if they were to
gain power. After all, the “conclusive evidence” of the sarin attacks earlier
this summer cited by the American government has failed to provoke even the
delivery of military aid, let alone boots on the ground.
The
UN teams must answer questions of who is culpable for the attacks swiftly if
there is to be hope of outside intervention. The conflict has already caused
human suffering at a pace and scale that is unprecedented in regional history:
over 100,000 have died in the civil war, and more than half of Syria’s
population has been displaced both internally and abroad. The addition of
chemical weapons will devastate an already shattered country, and lessen the
likelihood of a peaceful transition when the dust clears. In the worst case
scenario, chemical weapons alongside conventional warfare will render the
country Syria a barren failed state, with stronghold controlled by warlords
where massacres and human rights violations regularly take place. In the best,
a timely intervention by outside forces to establish No-Fly Zones and safe
havens for civilians while assisting the rebels to win militarily or force the
regime to the negotiating table would at least leave Syria intact as a country.
At this point in the conflict, that’s the best we can hope for, and that is
nearly as depressing as the West’s lack of intervention for the last two years.
It's not really unprecedented for the region. An example being Iran Iraq war took an estimated million lives.
ReplyDeleteI think what Vicky was getting at with that classification is the magnitude of life lost AND displacements. In the only area of the MENA region with tiny countries all packed next to each other, refugee flows become a huge problem both for the sender country and the small, economically-weak receiving state(s).
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internally_Displaced_Persons_in_Iraq
ReplyDelete