MSF confirms Syria 'chemical deaths'

[pampango]

17. Per Juan Cole, the government does benefit, if the dictator wants to terrorize his population.

If the regime did use gas, what are its motives? Iraq used gas in the 1980s because it had far fewer troops than Iran and wanted to level the playing field. Likewise, the Syrian army has shrunk through Sunni desertions to a shadow of its former self and so can’t control the whole country any more. Its recent advances in the Homs area were offset by losses around Aleppo in the north, including the fall of a major military air base. Weakened armies facing a demographically larger foe often resort to unconventional armaments.

Likewise, the regime clearly is seeking to terrify the population into submission. Again, Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds and Shiites. Mass killings of restive populations by a regime raise the cost of insurgency, the regime hopes to unacceptably high levels. Could the Baath have done this? This is the regime that slaughtered at least 10,000 at Hama in 1982, so sure.

Did they do it? Hard to tell this morning.. But if they did, it will increase pressure on a reluctant Obama to speed up promised shipments of weapons to the rebels. If Damascus is playing it this way, it is clearly calling Obama’s bluff. Lesson to Mr. Obama: don’t bluff and don’t set red lines unless you’re really committted to reacting if they are crossed.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/killing-hundreds-obamas.html

If the regime was afraid of the UN weapons inspectors, it would be different. Assad has delayed their entry into the country by months, restricted the sites they are allowed to visit and prohibited them from determining responsibility for the attacks. He knows he can prevent them from visiting the site of the most recent attack indefinitely. He has the UN team on a very short leash and is not afraid of them.