Kerry’s narrative is full of holes. First, we’ve yet to ascertain that chemical weapons really were used by Assad – specifically we’ve not determined a) what kind of WMDs they were or b) who actually did it. The situation is complicated by how difficult it’s proving to get to the site of the attack to carry out tests. But this is a war zone, and forensic tests take longer and are more complicated to execute when you’re surrounded by people trying to blow each other up. So it’s going to take time.
Second, why would the Assad regime do something so stupid? It must know that by using chemical weapons it would isolate itself from any international support and invite a Western military response. More importantly, Assad was already winning the war – so why bother to use WMDs during the last lap to victory? Indeed, the only people who have anything to gain by Assad using chemicals are the rebels, because that would internationalise the conflict in a way that they have long lobbied for.
Third, why is the West obliged to act even if Assad did use chemical weapons? We are not under any such treaty obligations and the subject sure doesn’t feature as a trigger for war in the US constitution.
(…) By the way, if the West was looking for a pretext to intervene in Syria on humanitarian grounds then it’s had plenty already: Assad’s been killing tens of thousands of innocents for two years. So what difference would one chemical attack make?
- VIDEO EVIDENCE!!! ‘It was the rebels using chemicals, not Assad’ (topinfopost.com)
- Intelligence Suggests Assad Not Behind Chemical Weapons Attack (sgtreport.com)
- Bashar Al Assad’s Brother May Have Ordered Last Week’s Chemical Weapons Attack (finance.yahoo.com)
- U.s.: Not Trying to Take Out Assad with Syria Response (socyberty.com)
- More WMD Lies in Syria and The Coming Carnage (globalelite.tv)
- Why Should Chemical Weapons Be a Red Line in Syria – or Anywhere Else? (reason.com)
- Are Chemical Weapons Cause For War? (dish.andrewsullivan.com)