Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(106,161 posts)
35. Juan Cole on why it might have been Assad's forces
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:43 PM
Aug 2013
Some have asked why the regime would risk using poison gas when it has been making gains against the rebels. But the regime’s advances are minor and tenuous. It only took the small town of Qusayr with Hizbullah help! And ‘advances’ in Homs were just scorched earth destruction of neighborhoods. They were offset by loss of a major air base near Aleppo, key for resupply of troops up there because roads north are insecure. The regime can only advance here or there, but doesn’t have manpower to take back substantial territory.

My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldn’t be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it.

I don’t find the ‘false flag’ narrative about the gas attack put forward by the Russians plausible. Rebel forces are not disciplined enough to be sure of being able to plot and carry out a mass murder of the families that have been sheltering them in East and West Ghouta and to keep it secret. How could they have been sure no one among them would get cold feet and blow the whistle? Killing hundreds of women and children from your own clans would be objectionable to at least some in any group of fighters. The fighters in Rif Dimashq are not the hardened Jabhat al-Nusra types. Besides, capturing and deploying rocket systems tipped with poison gas is not so easy; even just operating them takes training.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html


Note that he is sceptical about American intervention; but he does think it's more likely to have been the government forces than rebels.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The French are floating a "desperate attempt to stop 300 Supermen" theory..... Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #1
The media is always pro-war blazeKing Aug 2013 #2
I'm opposed to war with Syria Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2013 #5
War sells a lot of beer and Cheetos when those dazzling cruise missles blow up stuff. Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2013 #8
Assad supports what the military in Egypt is doing to the brotherhood JI7 Aug 2013 #3
To what end? Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #6
it's psychological also , i just don't find it hard to believe he would use it JI7 Aug 2013 #9
So, you are offering that Assad Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #12
the west has not responded , and if he was behind the use of these weapons the last time around JI7 Aug 2013 #16
Terror? wild bird Aug 2013 #11
I thought this right away. Puzzledtraveller Aug 2013 #4
Why did Saddam use them? Adrahil Aug 2013 #7
In my opinion, it was a combination of desparation and terrorism. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #10
Nonsense! Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #17
Well, the first is hubris. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #19
I also posted yesterday news from Al Jazeera that rebels have taken north/coastal syrian town KittyWampus Aug 2013 #22
Here's the thing. wild bird Aug 2013 #28
WHY Assad would have used these weapons for tactical reasons. rdharma Aug 2013 #13
He was winning the war. Vinnie From Indy Aug 2013 #18
You just might win faster if you use chemical weapons. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #23
No. Assad wasn't "winning the war". rdharma Aug 2013 #25
Gosh on CNN had a nice Freudian slip nadinbrzezinski Aug 2013 #14
Who would benefit from the use of chemical weapons? eissa Aug 2013 #15
Not true, I posted an interview below from an al jazeera analyst. But at this point, DU is an echo KittyWampus Aug 2013 #24
Yes, saw that eissa Aug 2013 #26
Yes. This is almost too good to be true for the rebels. It smells. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2013 #20
I posted an Al Jazeera interview yesterday. So there are potential reasons, you just ignore them KittyWampus Aug 2013 #21
It makes no sense to kill your own people to send a message to Israel. this is BS kelliekat44 Aug 2013 #27
Assad doesn't consider the rebels "his people". And if you read the interview, he goes into why KittyWampus Aug 2013 #29
He'd be right eissa Aug 2013 #30
The fallacy here is that people think that Assad is thinking like a Western leader wild bird Aug 2013 #31
yes, and it's good to find different perspectives. It does help. KittyWampus Aug 2013 #34
Curveball...is that you? HooptieWagon Aug 2013 #33
If America attacks Syria it helps Assad Cicada Aug 2013 #32
Juan Cole on why it might have been Assad's forces muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There has not been ONE re...»Reply #35