|
PeonForHer -> RE: Chemical weapons used in Syria (8/26/2013 4:33:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Its absurd to suggest the rebels shelled their own positions with nerve gas. If Assad truly thought that was the case, he would have let in the UN Monitors in a heartbeat.
Ordinarily I would agree with you. But, in situations like this, I find it helpful to ask 'who gains?' I'm unable to see how Assad could gain anything from using chemical weapons against an opponent he is already defeating using conventional arms. I could be overlooking something - in which case I would appreciate you pointing out what exactly I am missing. I have already noted that: " The Assad regime did itself no favors by dragging its feet on granting [access to] to the UN investigation team".
In the annals of warfare, committing an atrocity against one's own side, with the express hope of getting one's opponent blamed for the atrocity is neither unknown nor implausible. Indeed, far from it. Neither is committing a needless atrocity even when it runs directly counter to a side's interests.
I don't profess to know what happened. But I can work out whose interests would be furthered by using chemical weapons.
Assad would gain an awful lot if the international community did nothing - say, on the basis that widespread respectability was gained for the idea that the rebels did the bombing in order to gain sympathy from the international community. There's still more than a chance that the rebels could win in Syria and, if so, the lives of Assad and his supporters would most likely be forfeit.
But even if the rebels didn't win this present civil war, the Assad regime would still have to settle in for a long, long period of discontent that's likely to be violent, and that frequently. Assad's only tried-and-trusted remedy so far has been to frighten the hell out of dissenters.
|
|
|
|
