By Richard Spencer World Last updated: April 27th, 2013
269 Comments Comment on this article
A man searches for survivors from the rubble of a damaged area in Aleppo this month. (Photo: Reuters)
Before you get at the truth on Syria's chemical weapons, you have to debunk the conspiracy theorists. The comments underneath my backgrounder in today's paper on the politics behind the latest Syrian chemical weapons claim were more interesting and less rabid than might be expected on this emotive topic. But they still divided neatly into two extreme camps – those who thought that President Obama's failure to take action against the Assad regime was typical of his weak international leadership and those who thought the whole chemical weapons theme was a giant scam intended to force us into war.
There can be hardly anyone, I sometimes think, who now doesn't roll their eyes about all this and say "here we go again"; anyone who takes anything anyone says at face value. Even journalists have declared today that "in war everyone lies", which even if true is never a very helpful thing to say: why, then, should we care, or listen to journalists either?
In fact, it's pretty easy to debunk most of the conspiracy theories about the latest chemical weapons claims by Britain and America. I would argue that even if you don't believe the claims, and are opposed to western intervention, it would serve your purpose to do so, so you know what ground you are standing on. You will still be left with two very strong lines of inquiry. I'll get to them.
1. "It's just Iraq WMD all over again." Actually, it isn't. The claims about Iraq's WMDs were based on snippets of information from agents, ambiguous satellite imagery, and the like. None of the raw data was clear – no-one, not even those who presented it, claimed it was. The reason for the "dodgy dossier" was the need to put a huge amount of spin on the evidence, none of which was verifiable. The dossier was met with laughter and contempt at the time; moreover, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was widely condemned. Plenty of reputable bodies, notably the IAEA, poured doubt on the American and British arguments. This time we have a very specific claim, with scientific evidence – they have soil samples which they say have tested positive for sarin, a nerve gas. The lie this time would have to be much more shameless. And if it's a lie, there are quite a significant number of scientists eating their breakfasts and reading their papers out there and saying, not, as before "I don't like the interpretation they put on that", like David Kelly, but "Hang on, that's not what I found at all." Independent scientists are not pouring scorn on the claims, merely saying they are not conclusive – as do the governments themselves.
2. "Saddam Hussein's use of poison gas killed thousands of people. This has only killed a few people. It can't be chemical warfare." You hear this one a lot. But why? You can use small quantities. The stocks – as Amy Smithson, a US expert pointed out to me, could be degraded. When a Japanese cult used sarin in the Tokyo metro in 1995 13 people died – similar to the numbers we are talking about in Syria.
3. "The frothing faces and people in those videos look phony to me". They do, a bit. But one thing I have learned rather more than I would have wanted to in the last couple of years is how often dead and grievously injured bodies do look as if they have sustained their wounds on a Hollywood set. It's gruesome, but true. I don't know why: maybe it's to do with the brain's desire not to face up to some horrors.
4. "All we know about this war is from videos; the rebels could all be making everything up." Technically possible, but seriously? The extent of video evidence of regime atrocities in general means the work involved in the forgery would be beyond anything imaginable. In fact, when independent groups like Human Rights Watch have done their own research, they have found activists to have underestimated casualties figures. In the case of the chemical weapons videos, forgery would need complicity of named doctors who have in several cases been interviewed independently by journalists. That does seem to put a greater onus on those accusing them of lying to do more than repeat easy, blanket suspicions.
5. "Obama and Cameron are just trying to push us into another Middle Eastern war". It's fairly obvious to anyone who looks that there is nothing that either of these men want to do less than risk their reputations on another Middle Eastern war. Both are much more traditional in the foreign policy approach than predecessors like Bush II and Blair – neo-realists, with a clear idea of what is doable, and what is and isn't a national interest. Libya was a far too damned close run thing for either, as some of those have admitted. Syria hasn't met either criterion. Even if you are one of those people for whom it's "all about oil" – well, there isn't much in Syria.
Does that mean that everything is clear-cut? No, but then the statements of the two governments say that themselves. On the other hand, are they being totally upfront with us? Well, here the answer is no, and this is where we should all be looking over the next few days. It comes down to two questions.
1. Why can't you publish the evidence? The symptoms seen on the videos could be the result of chemical use that does not breach the rules of war. That is admitted. Indeed, the first reading of the gas attack in Homs in December last year was that the gas involved was a souped-up tear gas. The Syrian Support Group – a rebel lobbying group in Washington – say they have tested samples from the key attack in Aleppo on March 19 positive for organophosphates which have a similar effect to sarin but which aren't banned. Given that both British and American governments say their tests have found sarin (no equivocation – the "not definitive" appears to refer to the transmission of these samples and doubts as to how the chemicals got where they were) there seems no reason they cannot publish the specific findings for peer review. Where did the samples come from, how were they tested, what were the results precisely, what are the assessed margins of error? They will look stupid if it's found the readings came back "Tests proved sarin to 60pc probability, but it could have been something which had a similar effect, the sample size was too small to be certain."
2. Given that we all know (really, we do) that Syria is a huge problem with no easy answer, possibly no sustainable answer at all, it would be better to admit there is a wide policy divide on it. The neo-realist approach – once strongly embedded in the Republican and Conservative parties, and making a come-back – is that far from promoting American values, Bush's Middle East wars hugely damaged western interests. The biggest threat to American global dominance is the debt, brought about by indulging in imperial over-reach wars in the Middle East that coincided with the rise of China. They don't want to make the same mistake again – some would (I believe) go so far as to sacrifice Israeli interests to prevent this happening. On the other hand, a combination of those who believe American might is unstoppable, liberal interventionists, and, hell, anyone who has been to Syria and seen what a cluster**** it has become, wants America to do something. Large sections of the American policy establishment have changed tack on this over the last two years, particularly the Pentagon, which was initially sceptical and is now, many believe, acting unilaterally to get weapons to the rebels. This is the debate, and it should be had honestly, with as few references to previous disasters as possible. After all, we all know that seeking to avoid previous errors is the best way of making them happen again.
Read more by Richard Spencer on Telegraph Blogs
Follow Telegraph Blogs on Twitter
Tags: Barack Obama, Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, Syria, weapons of mass destruction
*** 292 Comments
Read more: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/richardspencer/100214145/before-you-get-at-the-truth-on-syrias-chemical-weapons-you-have-to-debunk-the-conspiracy-theorists/
_________
What do you think?
Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc .
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị .
conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
30042013
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC
No comments:
Post a Comment