http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/us-anxiously-shaping-contingency-options-syrian-chemical-arsenal/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1
http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/article/syria-seen-prepping-sarin-bombs-possible-air-strike/?mgh=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nti.org&mgf=1
First, I can’t help but wonder how different our diplomatic efforts (with Syria, Russia, China) would turn out if we weren’t 1) weakened economically due to our huge deficit and debt and 2) diminished diplomatically due to Obama’s international weakness. Second, the UN, yet again, shows its inability by allowing Russia and China to veto action that passes ANY test of reason. Third, this feels like how Iraq started, yet in the end all we were told was how Bush lied to force the war. Will Obama be portrayed the same way?
Kes, what is the consensus opinion on the source of the Syrian weapons? Is there an idea of who, what, when and where they were either provided the weapons/agents or the technology and expertise to weaponize and distribute them? Knowing absolutely nothing about such things, I would assume that there are unique "fingerprints" for the source of agents, technology and/or distribution vehicles that could identify their origins?????
There is consensus opinion, though it is generally understood that Syria had/has performed in-house chemical weapons research, development, and production. They have not admitted to having those weapons, facilities, nor capabilities, nor have they signed onto the CWC which has been signed by just about everybody except them and Israel. Although there are ways to identify likely country of origin for these weapons, I don't know that there is any way to "prove" from which country's facilities the weapons and/or precursors originated, although I make no claims that I am privy to that information. When we went into Iraq the second time, and could find no stockpiles of chemical weapons, Syria was one of the countries rumored to have accepted the Iraqi chemicals (along with Jordan, Libya, and a few other possible candidates). We know for a fact Iraq had chemical weapons, and Hussein's own documentation showed they still had them when we went in, so it had to have gone somewhere. The fact that chemical weapons have not been used in terrorist strikes indicates to me that they were likely given to a government entity rather than those terrorist organizations. As far as my reference to Bush, I still believe he did the right thing MORALLY with the intel he had. For God's sake, Hussein USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE so the international community KNOWS he had those facilities and research knowledge. However, Bush hung out there politically and the Left and the media hung him with it since he couldn't find a smoking gun. One point I would like to make is that there were several items (IEDs, labs, etc.) that were found that had chemical contamination on them, but no recoverable agent was located, damning him to be a "liar" and "war criminal". It appears this administration (and his military advisors) have learned that lesson because the "red line" has been moved to AFTER the weapons have been used or moved. Then, they won't have to go in and identify a smoking gun after the fact. This is more dangerous for us and the civilians against whom they may be used, but more politically advantageous for the administration.
The "public warning of Mr. Obama" had nothing to do with Syria stopping preparations of their chemical arsenal. Public warnings from Mr. Obama have, to date, been pretty much ignored by Assad. (Remember Obama warning Syria not to prepare the weapons in the first place?) The only thing that will make him think twice about using chemical weapons is if back door channels (Russia, Turkey, China) that would otherwise offset a response from the US indicate that they would not support, and indeed denounce, that action. Other than that, this is a good read: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/w...-to-rare-accord.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y&_r=0
The same question exists, months later...do we prevent their use and risk losing track of them (as we did in Iraq) or do we wait until afterward and clean up the mess? http://www.nti.rsvp1.com/gsn/articl...chemical-attack/?mgh=http://www.nti.org&mgf=1
Kes, I continue to believe that there are no doubt a number of elements of the Syrian chemical weapon capability that have their origins in Baghdad.
BZ (similar to Agent 15) was tested in the 60s as a hallucinogen chemical weapon by the US chemical program. Atropine is an antidote for nerve agents (VX, tabun, sarin, etc.) by “drying up” the mucous membranes. BZ acts in a similar manner to atropine. Nerve agents are cholinesterase inhibitors, whereas BZ is an acetylcholine inhibitor. It isn’t nearly as lethal as the nerve agents, but can kill. Interestingly, Iraq had a large supply of Agent 15. Finally, the abiltiy to detect of BZ didn't continue to advance like the detection of nerve agents because of the "dead end" research BZ represented. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria
I'm not sure what I think about this. Although it is good to get the region involved, I'm not so sure I want Turkey, Iraq, Jordan to have responsibility to guard these materials. On another note, although "hundreds of tons" sounds like a lot, depending on the makeup of the munitions, destruction can be performed pretty quickly once the equipment is in place. http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-providing-turkey-jordan-cw-protection-gear-case-crisis/
If you’re interested, this is article gives a more detailed description of the differences between BZ and nerve agents, much more detailed than what I gave above. The conclusions are also in conflict with the “Secret” cable claiming Syria used chemical weapons. Tough to know what the truth is when both sides are known liars. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/01/the-case-of-agent-15-did-syria-use-a-nerve-agent.html
It would seem so Jim..... .....and this administration's ever shifting "red line" provides evidence to nothing but a weak-kneed policy approach
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...7_1_chemical-weapons-syrian-government-aleppo I think Obama hopes this turns out to be the case (or result of the investigation).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cd5570-9314-11e2-a31e-14700e2724e4_story.html When they talk about the difficulty of finding evidence of chemical weapons release, they're generally talking about a highly-volatile agent like GB, Sarin. Agents like VX are considered a persistent, area denial weapon that can be detected (with the proper instrumentation) for quite some time after dispersal, unlike Sarin that evaporates and disperses relatively quickly.
http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/libya-expected-to-destroy-mustard-gas-stockpiles-watchdog The US version of the incinerator and PAS for Ruwagha was built and tested in 2007. What they don't say in the article, is that diplomatic difficulties prevented the destruction of the then-declared Libyan stockpile from being completed prior to 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b59187f_story.html?hpid=z1?wpisrc=al_national There can be no respect nor viable threat response when "red lines" and "promises" are not kept.