Hi, folks -
The past few days the question has been raised repeatedly, "Why would Assad do it? What would he have to gain?" And quickly concluding that he would not have done it because there was nothing for him to gain, we, usually, moved on.
RT.com reported on April 4:
The Syrian Air Force has destroyed a warehouse in Idlib province where chemical weapons were being produced and stockpiled before being shipped to Iraq, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman said.
The strike, which was launched midday Tuesday, targeted a major rebel ammunition depot east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said in a statement.
[...]
The Defense Ministry has confirmed this information as “fully objective and verified,” Konashenkov added.
[... However:]
Hasan Haj Ali, commander of the Free Idlib Army rebel group, rejected Russia’s version of the incident, saying the rebels had no military positions in the area.
“Everyone saw the plane while it was bombing with gas,” he told Reuters.
“Likewise, all the civilians in the area know that there are no military positions there, or places for the manufacture [of weapons]. The various factions of the opposition are not capable of producing these substances,” he added.
Read more of that article:
https://www.rt.com/news/383522-syria-idlib-warehouse-strike-chemical/
So - on the one hand we have a Russian spokesman asserting that Syria was destroying a poison gas storage and production site, while on the other we have a rebel commander saying the idea is essentially preposterous and Syria gassed its own people.
The one thing that seems generally agreed upon is that a 'gas attack' resulted from the flight of a plane that came from the air base that Trump subsequently ordered hit with cruise missiles. (I don't know where I saw it, but a recent post, tweet, or article said the US Navy had tracked the plane, so it was clear where it had come from.)
A Syrian plane flew; a gas attack followed. What we don't know is whether that attack was something Assad wanted or an unfortunate side effect of his tying to do the right thing (as indicated by the Russian spokesman), protecting his own people and also the people of Iraq who appear to have been the intended targets of the gas allegedly being manufactured.
So, let's linger for a moment over the question I mentioned at the top: "Why would Assad do it? What would he have to gain?"
I come up with only two possibilities:
1. He wanted to 'frame' the rebels.
2. He really wanted to destroy gas weapons that really were there, as asserted by the Russian spokesman; and the 'gas attack' on civilians was an unintended consequence.
About "framing the rebels", let's bear in mind we're not sure who those rebels are or who they might be working for. They could be the CIA, with a goal of regime change. Even so, would it accomplish anything worthwhile to add to their being blamed? Not that I've been able to see.
About "destroy gas weapons and production", that sounds pretty likely to me; and if the rebel commander works for the CIA, I can imagine his wanting to deflect blame elsewhere - and sending it in Assad's direction would tie-in nicely with the goal of regime change.
If I can have these thoughts, so can President Trump. :) And that opens a different question: "If Assad was seeking to destroy poison gas and civilians were harmed in the process, why then order a strike on the air base...and even warn Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iraq that it was coming (but not the Chinese or North Koreans)...?"
That leads me back to Steve Pieczenik's remarks about all this, that it was "The Art of the Deal" and achieved multiple benefits including the end of the "Trump is Putin's puppet" meme and an increase of leverage for negotiating with China. The relatively limited destruction that resulted from the air strikes seems consistent with Pieczeniik's interpretation.
Those are my thoughts at this hour; yours may be different. :)
Blessings.
--hobie
************************************************************************
