Syria's Chemical Weapons and Foreign Intervention
- Published in Analysis
- |
Syria's Chemical Weapons and Foreign Intervention
The spectre of chemical weapons in Syria has been cited continuously for over 18 months ever since the uprising in Syria began. News reports on 12 July 2012 indicated that some Syrian chemical weapons were being moved from their storage areas causing concern amongst US officials that the weapons might be used against rebels or civilians. On Monday 9th October the US Department of Defence confirmed that a team of US military planners were in Jordan in order to deal with Syria's chemical weapons.
The team, led by special operations forces and comprising about 150 troops, mainly from the US Army, is constructing a headquarters building in Amman from which operational planning and intelligence gathering will take place. "We have been working with Jordan for a period of time now ... on a number of the issues that have developed as a result of what's happened in Syria," US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta told a news conference in Brussels. Panetta said those issues included monitoring chemical weapons sites "to determine how best to respond to any concerns in that area."
The brutal crackdown that has been taking place for the past 18 months is not enough of a reason to intervene for the US, whilst the prospect of chemical weapons and civil war is constantly cited as reasons for possible intervention. The possible bloodbath in Benghazi, Libya was the pretext for military intervention in Libya, however the bloodbath of the Ummah that takes place every day in Syria is still not enough for the West to intervene to remove al-Assad.
Chemical weapons
Syria is not a signatory to either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). As a result it began developing chemical weapons in 1973 prior to the Yom Kipper War. Ever since, Syria has made efforts to acquire and maintain an arsenal of chemical weapons. Whilst Syria has denied its possession of chemical weapons, this as in order to create uncertainty with those who have designs on the country. Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, said at a news conference shown live on Syrian state television on July 2012, confirming Syria possessed chemical weapons: "These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic, any such weapons were carefully monitored by the Syrian Army, and that ultimately their use would be decided by generals."
Syria reportedly manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard gas types of chemical weapons. These are from chemical weapons production facilities that have been identified by Western non-proliferation experts at approximately 5 sites, plus one suspected weapons base, which include Al Safir, Cerin, Hama, Homs, Latakia and Palmyra.
Independent assessments indicate that Syrian production is a mere few hundred tons of chemical agent per year. This is because Syria is unable to internally produce many of the necessary precursors to create chemical weapons and is dependent upon importing important precursor chemicals and production equipment. The CIA reports in nearly every declassified acquisition report to the US Congress over the last five years the efforts of Syria to obtain precursor chemicals and equipment from external sources. The chemicals stockpiled prior to international export controls have likely long been exhausted.
The End Game in Syria
The situation currently in the country is that the al-Assad regime which controlled every strata of society has failed to end the uprising, employing all sorts of brutal tactics to quell the demand for change by the masses. The situation has been complicated by international powers who all have a stake in the outcome of the country and who have been manoeuvring to influence the outcome. Successive strategies by the West have failed to stem the call for change by the people of Syria. What is currently taking place is the battle for the country post Al-Assad between the Sunni Muslims of Syria and the US.
This stalemate has been achieved by the Ummah as they left their fear of the regime and all the notorious tools it uses and decided to take on the regime and have improved in their coordination and tactics. The Ummah in Syria has been at war for over a year now, with experience and aid from defecting Syrian troops, their fighting acumen has improved. The sharp increase in the number of destroyed Syrian army tanks and armoured fighting vehicles attests to the capability of the Ummah. The influx of fighters from other countries as has been reported has also bolstered the Ummah. This influx includes experienced Syrian and Iraqi fighters who fought in the Iraq war against US forces. Their experience in Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's) would appear to have had an enormous effect on the Ummah's capabilities to inflict casualties and damage on the Syrian military.
This is why the Syrian military has avoided costly armoured attacks on rebel-held urban areas where armour is more vulnerable. The regime has come to rely on air-power and shelling from afar using tanks, artillery and attack helicopter support. The opposition as well as the Free Syrian Army (FSA) has not needed to match the security forces' numbers or firepower because the rebels force the regime to fight everywhere at once, taking advantage of their superior mobility and flexibility to mount effective raids and ambushes where and when it suits them.
As the opposition do not have a control and command structure like a conventional army infiltration by the West as well as al-Assad's forces it has been extremely difficult. Due to the prospects of defections al-Assad has been forced to rely almost entirely upon the Republican Guard and Fourth Armoured Division, as well as the Shabiha, keeping the bulk of the army, which is Sunni in their barracks. As a result, al-Assad has lost most of rural Syria and concentrated his forces in the battle for Damascus and Aleppo.
The lack of heavy weapons by the opposition is the only obstacle standing in their way of carrying out a sustained attack on the capital Damascus and the countries economic hub - Aleppo. America, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are all attempting the lure of the opposition with promises of heavy weapons in return for their loyalty. Their failure to lure them is why heavy weapons have not been delivered to the opposition, as much as they say they are supporting the opposition.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's)
There have been a number of reports that indicate Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons is being moved to ensure their safety. However the battle taking place in Syria between al-Assad and the Ummah, chemical weapons will do little to alter the facts on the ground.
Syria does not possess large quantities of chemical agents. What Syria does have will also need to be transported in yields to cause significant damage. As military commanders learned on the battlefields of Europe during World War I, and during the Iran-Iraq war, chemical agents are volatile and quick to vaporize, and they tend to dissipate quickly. As a result, deadly concentrations can be difficult to amass in a real-world setting.
The nature of the uprising in Syria is that it is taking place all over the country. The rebels do not have fixed facilities or headquarters where they stock their weapons and use these as supply lines. Using artillery to disperse chemical agents would have little impact as the opposition forces are dispersed around the country and thus chemical weapons would have little impact when dispersed over a large area.
Chemical weapons could be deployed using a delivery system such as a missile. The hazardous material would need to be manufactured in lethal amounts as a warhead and integrated with a missile. Al-Assad's relationship with Russia has resulted in large weapons exports which included a large stock of Scud missiles. Scud missiles are a series of tactical ballistic missiles developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They were exported widely to other countries, including Syria.
As a tactical military weapon, Scud missiles are ineffective tool. The Scud missiles shot into Israel from Iraq in 1991 did not hit any significant military, government, or infrastructure targets, and only two Israelis died from the direct impact of Scuds. Scud missiles are more a weapon of terror to strike fear into the enemy. Scud missiles are suited to larger targets such as ports, airports, industrial sites etc. Integrating a chemical warhead with a Scud missile will only be useful if there are silos' or heavy machinery to target in fixed areas, which is not the case in Syria. Al-Assad is fighting an unconventional rather than a conventional force. The unconventional battle and use of asymmetric tactics is what is leading to a stalemate. In Syria there will be too many rebel units to target and scuds are notoriously inaccurate. It is also questionable if the al-Assad regime has even succeeded in integrating its chemical weapons warheads with a missile. In July 2007, a Syrian arms depot exploded, killing at least 15 Syrians. Jane's Defence Weekly, the military and corporate affairs magazine believed that the explosion happened when Iranian and Syrian military personnel attempted to fit a Scud missile with a mustard gas warhead.
Intervention
The bombing at the National Security Headquarters in Damascus on July 18, 2012 that eliminated several of the regime's top security bosses and possible candidates to take over from al-Assad was the moment when the US constantly highlighted possible intervention due to civil war and chemical weapons falling into radical hands. The Syrian Defense Minister Dawoud Rajha, former Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani, Interior Minister Mohammad al-Shaar, National Security Council Chief Hisham Biktyar and Deputy Defense Minister Assef Shawkat (Al-Assad's brother-in-law) are all reported to have perished, whilst Al-Assad's brother Maher al Assad - the Republican Guard and Fourth Division Commander is reported to have lost both his legs. This event led to a flurry of statements by US officials such as the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Defence Secretary, the Secretary of State and the President himself increasing the calls for military intervention.
This order of events shows the US might intervene if the Ummah in Syria are on the verge of overthrowing al-Assad as they would replace him with another ruler who is not an agent or proxy of the US. The spread of chemical weapons may be used as an excuse and will be the pretext to intervene if such a point is reached. The US has hindered the progress of the opposition by not providing heavy weapons and stopping anyone else doing so, in order to construct an alternative in the country that will be loyal to it. America's military machine will intervene if the Ummah further increase in their capability and show signs of capitulating the al-Assad regime. After 18 months and for the moment the US has failed in constructing an alternative, stopping the progress of the Ummah and luring the opposition with promises of heavy weapons remains its strategy.
Conclusions
America and its allies are constructing various myths to justify possible intervention. Until now the US has relied upon proxy countries in the region in the hope that its interests will be protected, with as much of the Syrian state machinery as possible. Chemical weapons could be the excuse to intervene in the country if the Ummah is on the verge of overthrowing the al-Assad regime.
Adnan Khan
