Art Hobson: Syrian attack hazy

Trump’s response to use of gas premature, uninformed

President Trump jumped prematurely to the conclusion that Bashar Assad's air force attacked the town of Khan Sheikhoun using nerve gas weapons. U.S. Reps. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, as well as former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter have raised serious doubts about this conclusion. Most importantly, a detailed assessment by weapons expert Theodore Postol, professor of science, technology and national security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, concludes that sarin gas was indeed released but probably not by Assad's forces.

I know Ted Postol personally and greatly respect his expertise. He analyzed photos of the crater with the collapsed remains of the metal tube that contained the sarin and concludes the attack was executed not from an aircraft but by individuals on the ground.

It's highly plausible rebel ground forces released the gases in a "false flag" operation designed to implicate Assad in a violation of the chemical weapons ban and thus bring the United States directly into the regime-change war. If so, they achieved part of their purpose when we launched 59 cruise missiles against Assad's airbase. Until an unbiased scientific organization studies this incident, we should be skeptical of U.S. accounts of the gas attack. In view of our false claim, used as a pretext for launching the Iraq War in 2003, that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons, it would not be the first false intelligence conclusion that involved us in a catastrophic war.

If I were certain Assad's government did conduct the attack, I would support the U.S. retaliatory strike. War is always tragic, but gas warfare is especially inhumane and the absolute ban against it should be enforced. But Trump acted prematurely and should have waited for real evidence.

In the wake of Assad's supposed gas attack, there have been calls from U.S. hawks and others including commentators, elected officials, Syrian rebels, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni powers to plunge more deeply into Syria's civil war. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of our misguided war for regime change in Iraq, advises us (in a National Public Radio interview on April 9) that "If you want to get peace in Syria, you can't leave Assad in power." The Trump administration went so far as to present Russian President Putin with an ultimatum demanding he side with the U.S. against Assad because, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson put it, "The reign of the Assad family is coming to an end."

Even if it turns out Assad did launch the gas attack, these calls for regime change represent a misreading of history, a strategic blunder and more misery for America. Do we really need another war? Have we learned nothing from the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, from the wreckage created by our military meddling in Libya, from the 400,000 Syrian deaths and millions of refugees already caused by our misguided support of the rebels? What's happening in Syria is a repeat of the endless Mideast cycle of strife between Islamic religious factions, primarily Sunni tribes supported by Turkey, the Gulf nations and the U.S. versus Shiite tribes supported by Iran and Russia. The people of the Mideast will continue to suffer so long as they embrace their current extreme and irrational religious values. We should fight Islamic State, but U.S.-assisted regime change is futile and only makes matters worse.

What do we imagine will happen once our forces have gloriously removed the much-despised Bashar Assad? Syria is a stew of tribal confusion, with only a small minority of people possessing the good sense to distance themselves from extreme Islam. How will they choose Syria's next leader? Do we suppose the jumble of rebel factions -- "our side" -- will be able to peacefully agree on a competent national leader? Who will maintain some semblance of order? Will this be yet another endlessly sick nation, sustained against extremist forces by western military power? Most importantly: What will be the end game?

Americans have difficulty learning from, or even paying attention to, history. We need to think more and do less, lead from our brains instead of our emotions. We should invest more in international education, science and humanitarian assistance and less in mindless military muscle.

On Nov. 11, I wrote a column titled "The fog of America's wars" based on Andrew Bacevich's book "America's War for the Greater Middle East." Bacevich's history lesson is a good starting point for anybody wanting to understand the Syrian shambles.

Commentary on 04/25/2017

Upcoming Events