Allow me to preface this diary by saying that I knew that the Bush administration's pretext for invading Iraq, the claimed existence of WMD's, was bullshit at the time. It didn't take much research to establish that the claimed evidence was based on bullshit, that the Bush Administration was stovepiping information to support its claims of WMD, that major allies, as well as competent and responsible entities within the US government, knew that there was no "there" there.
The Bush Administration "succeeded" in invading Iraq by bribing and arm-twisting allies, fearmongering, political manipulation, and exploiting 9/11. I feel that they used propagandistic techniques to accomplish their goals. I also believe that this complete abuse of power was directed by a small group of individuals, mostly within the Bush administration, who basically "hacked" the US government, bypassing standard checks and balances by exploiting weaknesses - a US military whose duty is to serve and protect, not question, a CIA subject to requests from the White House for specific intelligence-based documentation, and elected officials post-9/11 convinced by fearmongers to vote to "protect America".
Also, I don't watch television, so I am immune from that particular "propaganda vector".
This diary isn't intended to discuss the moral and ethical dimensions of a military action/war in Syria, nor is it intended to justify one. This is written to encourage a discussion of the specific question of who deployed CW in the Ghouta attacks. I'm stating my opinion, based on the information available to me, and what I consider to be a rational analysis.
There are definitely good reasons to question/oppose a US military action in Syria. However, I disagree with criticisms that are based on the theory that this is a false-flag operation deliberately staged to drag the US into war in Syria. I believe that this is neither a realistic nor a constructive interpretation of the information available.
So here we go...
1-The Assad regime has large stockpiles of chemical weapons, has committed significant resources to researching, developing and producing chemical weapons, and the capability to deliver chemical weapons attacks
Under the heading: "The chain of command and the responsibilities", the report says the Syrian Centre for Scientific Research Study (CERS) is responsible for producing toxic agents for use in war, pinpointing "Branch 450" as being responsible for filling munitions with chemicals and also the security of sites where the chemical agents are stocked. This branch, it claims, is "composed only of Alawite military personnel … distinguished by a high level of loyalty to the regime".
2-US government and military intelligence has the capability to provide very detailed monitoring, analysis and interpretation of activities connected with the
Ghouta attacks. Leaving aside the question of morality and ethics connected with the NSA's recently revealed capabilities to monitor communications and decrypt encrypted data, from a technical perspective, it's amazing, and indicative of the US resources and capability on the intelligence level.
The CIA recently acknowledged its role in providing satellite-based information to Saddam Hussein in 1997-1988 during the Iran-Iraq War, by communicating information about a planned spring offensive by Iran, which Hussein countered with chemical weapons attacks: Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
Again, questions of morality and ethics aside, the CIA's technical capabilities to collect and interpret satellite-based data twenty-five years ago were impressive. I believe that US government and military intelligence has the resources and capability to provide very clear documentation of activities connected with the Ghouta attacks.
3-The US is not going to reveal the full documentation available on this incident, because it would compromise the effectiveness of their intelligence-gathering capabilities. That has been Standard Operating Procedure for a long time, and it's a reasonable one (assuming the premise that covert activities are justified). As an extreme example, when the Allies cracked the Enigma machine during WW2, they didn't announce it publicly - that would have compromised the success of the program, by informing the Axis powers that their communications were no longer secure.
The apparent alternatives to the theory that the Assad regime used CW are
-False-flag attack by Syrian rebels.
I don't think that they have the capability to stage an incident that would deceive US intelligence.
-False-flag attack by MIC/PNAC conspiracy, with or without the complicity of the Obama administration.
Given the profound discrepancy between the conspiratorial competence required to pull off a false-flag attack of this scale, and the obvious failure to effectively manipulate the US into actually attacking, this seems very unlikely. Why wouldn't a conspiracy so powerful, and so dead-set on provoking a firestorm in the Middle East, have failed to plan out an effective path to actual war for the US? To say nothing of the failure to plan and prepare for an actual invasion into a Goetterdaemmerung of a war against Syria, Iran, and Russia.
The Bush administration took over a year from 9/11 to get the AUMF for Iraq, and 17 months to invade. There was credible evidence throughout that this was a war based on lies. The planning and preparation for a "boots on the ground" war on a military logistical level was enormous, time-consuming, and obvious. And yet the US-based false-flag Syria WMD conspiracy theory proposes that the ultimate goal is to conquer Syria and Iran, while holding Russia at arm's length, in a vastly complex "long game", to control the Middle-east's OilSpice and ensure US world hegemony, without any of the obvious indications of military preparations for a large-scale military attack!
But if this conspiratorial cabal is so all-powerful, why don't they just fuck off to their evil volcano island fortresses in the South Pacific and swim in pools of gold-dust, protected by barbed-wire and Blackwater mercenaries?
How is this possibly a more reasonable interpretation than:
-US intelligence confirmed that the Assad regime used WMD's.
-Obama decided that a military strike was a correct response.
?
I ask that participants in the discussion in this diary practice civility and respect for other commenters. I believe it's possible to have a constructive conversation on controversial topics without resorting to insults and mockery.