So What Really Happened?

[poliphilo]

 Two incidents- unrelated except insofar as they involved the use of poison- are bigged up- mainly by British politicians and the British media- to induce the general public to hate Russia and Russia's client, the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

The first incident happens behind screens (so to speak.) Much of the information that is released turns out to be untrue. The official story keeps changing. Nobody dies.

The second incident happens in an enclave inaccessible to independent witnesses. 

The US President goes off the deep end- as is his wont, 

A response is hurried through. The British cabinet acts unilaterally, refusing to involve Parliament- which is quite possibly unconstitutional.

The response takes the form of missile attacks on what the attackers claim to have been chemical factories in Syria. Advance warning seems to have been given and a number of empty buildings are reduced to powder. 

We can only guess at what was going on behind the scenes. One can't help noticing that the drama followed on from visits by the Saudi crown prince (who has skin in the game) to Washington, London and Paris.  The two triggering incidents remain highly mysterious. Neither would appear to have served the interests of the supposed perpetrators- in fact rather the opposite. The missile attack seems like a costly face-saving gesture- designed to remind those who might have forgotten it that NATO rules, OK- but otherwise achieving nothing. The impression remains, hovering like dust in the air- of a complicated and highly dangerous plan that was bungled and had to be aborted.

Comments

[cmcmck]

No 'quite possibly' about it!

It's why Cameron came unstuck on the same issue- he was constitutionally minded enough to ask..........

[poliphilo]

If May had asked permission she would probably have been told "No". She certainly didn't have the permission of the British people.

[tagryn]

I found this an effective rebuttal of the argument that Assad has nothing to gain from using chemical weapons:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/11/why-would-assad-use-sarin-in-a-war-hes-winning-to-terrify-syrians/?utm_term=.fe50fe7157a9
...What these American observers don’t grasp is that Assad doesn’t care about them: He plays less to the West than to his internal audience. The videos of children and first responders dying from sarin poisoning horrified people, and this is exactly what they were intended to do: They were meant to strike fear into rebels and send the message that the war was over.

History tells us that Assad had plenty to gain from using chemical weapons, U.S. Tomahawk missiles notwithstanding. Since last year, the Syrian government has been mopping up rebel-held enclaves around Damascus and offering their residents “cease-fire” deals — essentially negotiated surrenders. Each agreement is different, but most allow some people to evacuate to Idlib, the most significant remaining redoubt of rebel-held territory. The area around Khan Sheikhoun had seen sporadic fighting in the days before the sarin attack; for anyone contemplating a desperate last stand in Idlib, the message was clear: Don’t even think about it.

The chemical attack came at a time when Assad’s military is overstretched. Chemical weapons are a cheap, effective force multiplier — a way to inflict terror despite limitations of manpower and supply. Their use instills fear in civilians and rebels alike. By discouraging them from joining the last pockets of resistance, this tactic saves Assad something more precious than money: time...

[poliphilo]

Yes, it's a reasonable argument.