22

For the recent chemical attack in Syria, most claim Assad did it, some claim it was an accident, and some claim it was a false flag operation.

However, what realpolitical reasons could Assad have in launching such an attack, considering that:

  • it was at a relatively small scale, with less than 100 dead, so it would certainly not be crucial in completing a military objective which couldn't be completed otherwise
  • there is a strong international condemnation of chemical weapons, creating a lot of bad press for them and giving propaganda opportunities to their enemies
  • it could give a casus belli for foreign powers critical of Assad to get involved deeper in the conflict.

What could Assad realistically hope to gain from launching such an attack?

Rodrigo de Azevedo
  • 1
  • 7
  • 24
vsz
  • 2,653
  • 2
  • 16
  • 28
  • 4
    He would gain nothing. The so called rebels would have everything to gain. The rebels would be idiots not to carry out chemical attacks, knowing that U.S would respond without any investigations. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 17:08
  • 2
    @dan-klasson - That would be the "false flag" option. I recommend writing an answer saying that there wouldn't be any reason. – Bobson Apr 09 '17 at 17:59
  • 2
    @Bobson Yeah I had that thought too, although that wouldn't really answer the question. But right now I have no reason to believe that any false flag operation was carried out. The Russian version that they bombed a munition building with chemical weapons in it seems a lot more plausible, especially knowing that when the Syrian regime turned over the chemical weapons in 2013, with the subsequent inspections, it did not include rebel controlled areas. So it's quite reasonable to assume that there would still be some chemical weapons out there. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 18:10
  • 1
    I think there is evidence for possible false flag. As MIT professor analyzed, ammunition footage shown by rebels didn't burst inside out, as bombs do, it rather was an external artifact which exploded. Some rebels affected by the gas reported the smell being the worse, since it was "proved" sarin was used, it is inconsistent as it is odorless. – Suriya Apr 28 '17 at 22:17
  • And mainly, rebels were losing the war, the attack was done in the inner most part of rebel held area, the most protected one, so there was not much tactical advantage for SAA to attack it since by the time they reached it everything would be back to normal. – Suriya Apr 28 '17 at 22:17
  • Possible duplicate of Why would Assad use chemical weapons in the civil war? – JonathanReez Apr 13 '18 at 20:02
  • 1
    How can a question asked one year ago be a duplicate of one asked a few days ago? – Alexei Apr 13 '18 at 20:24
  • @Alexei my version of the questions has more answers, so it would be wiser to close this question. It doesn't matter which one was first. – JonathanReez Apr 13 '18 at 20:39

2 Answers2

11

Here are four possible reasons why the Syrian government could have used chemical weapons in this scenario. Note that we will likely never know which if any of these is the real reason.

  1. In general the reason for WMDs such as chemical weapons is to instill fear in your enemies. If you know the other guy has chemical weapons and is willing to use them, you're going to think twice about poking him.

  2. Chemical weapons are also very effective, especially if people are unprepared for them. They have very little risk to the attacking side and generally wipe out the defending side. If that particular area was being problematic then a chemical weapons attack is an effective way to take the area.

  3. This war has been rather personal for Assad. Besides being on the brink of loss, he has also lost some family members when the rebels were at the steps of Damascus. Because of this Assad may have genuine hatred for the rebels that fuels his urge to use chemical weapons against them. This however doesn't answer why he uses them now and not much in previous battles.

  4. The Syrian military is not perfect. They have been heavily affected by the years long war. It is possible that someone besides Assad ordered the chemical weapons attack without Assad's knowledge or approval. In that case there could be any number of reasons why the officer chose to give the order.

Again, remember, there is no confirmation that any of these are even partially the real reason, but they are all realisitc options.

David says Reinstate Monica
  • 10,388
  • 2
  • 39
  • 69
  • Why the downvote? – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 08 '17 at 02:00
  • 3
    This is not a military wargame exercise. Any answers are lacking depth of understanding. It is like asking a child to explain economic theory in a paragraph. The variables of how the chemical attack came to pass are almost infinite. – Venture2099 Apr 08 '17 at 10:50
  • 1
    These are good plausible answers. I have no idea why this is downvoted in anyway. – user4951 Apr 08 '17 at 18:49
  • 4
    Fully agreed on the voting based on political affiliation. I've noticed this in my short time asking and reading questions from this SE site. People seem to ask or click on questions expecting a given answer, and then are disappointed when they don't get the answer they want. It's disappointing. I joined this SE site in the presumption that I'd finally found a politics-based Q&A site actully centered around facts and critical thinking rather than the usual group-think. – Hashim Aziz Apr 08 '17 at 23:31
  • 2
    I've down voted because Politics.se isn't built for theorycrafting wargames in the current events. Short a leak of exceptional quality from the intelligence community, there is nothing that laymen can contribute. This is not a practical, detailed question. – Drunk Cynic Apr 08 '17 at 23:46
  • 2
    @DrunkCynic Can you point out anything factually wrong with my answer though? I think this question is fine. It is not asking for what the exact reasons are, its asking for what are advantages to his actions. That is something that can be easily analyzed. – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 08 '17 at 23:56
  • 1
    There aren't facts to dispute; This is collection of conjectures that could possibly be the incentive for using chemical weapons, with a fourth that pushes the conspiracy theory down a rung. – Drunk Cynic Apr 09 '17 at 00:04
  • 1
    @Hashim : it seems the site is intended to be about group-thinking, because any comment who tries to point out these problems are deleted, instead of discussed how it could be improved. My comment you replied to just disappeared, so do any comments with any constructive criticism about the site. This alone would not be a problem if there was a disclaimer on the FAQ that this site actually endorses a particular view, in such case at least it would be clear how we are expected to behave, instead of claiming neutrality but then selectively culling posts to conform to a particular view. – vsz Apr 09 '17 at 09:33
  • @vsz Stackexchange moderators like me regularly delete comments when they turn into discussions which lead away from constructive criticism of the actual post itself. This has nothing to do with enforcing any specific viewpoints. Only with keeping the site readable. If you would like a longer explanation, I can provide one on https://meta.politics.stackexchange.com – Philipp Apr 09 '17 at 09:41
  • 1
    You clearly deserve downvotes because you state it as a fact that the chemical attack did in fact happen and was carried by the Syrian regime. U.N has already publicly stated that they do not know who did it. Your 4 reasons are also ridiculous. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 16:57
  • 1
    @dan-klasson I only make the same assumptions that the OP's question did. I agree with you it will never be 100% known who actually did it, but the OP asked for reasons why Assad could have done it, not if he did it: What could Assad realistically hope to gain from launching such an attack? And why is 4 rediculous? Every army in every war always has horror stories of on the field commanders going rouge. You think when American troops in Vietnam raped some random village it was on the orders of the president? – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 09 '17 at 17:02
  • 1
    @DavidGrinberg Firstly, what OP said was "most claim Assad did it, some claim it was an accident". Secondly, he wrote "What could Assad realistically* hope to gain from launching such an attack?* (emphasize mine). None of your 4 reasons were remotely realistic. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 17:16
  • 1
    @dan-klasson (1) Once again, this question has already made the presupposition that Assad did it. This question is not asking if he did or didnt. It is clear from the OP's writing. (2) Some people have mentioned they believe my reasoning is unreasonable or unrealistic but no one has yet to actually explain why. Can you pick out a specific claim I make and explain to me why its not "remotely realistic"? IE what is not remotely realistic about chemical weapons instilling fear or chemical weapons being effective? – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 09 '17 at 18:11
  • @DavidGrinberg 1. No, read my last comment again where I quote OP directly. It should be obvious that he did not make any such presupposition. 2. Assad's goal is to win the war. He perfectly knows well what happened to Gaddafi and obviously do not want the same fate. He's been instilling fear for a long time, and being on the winning side of the civil war obviously hasn't changed that fact. All the other reasons are equally invalid and ridiculous if you consider the reasons he has for not using chemical weapons. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 18:16
  • @dan-klasson 1. We'll have to agree to disagree there. I get what your saying, I think he clearly states that answers should assume that Assad did it with the rest of his post. If you want to continue this part please open a chat. 2. Gaddafi didn't use chemical weapons. And Assad already has beforehand (with no real consequence). Yes he has been instilling fear for a long time. He wants to do more of that. This could easily be him turning up the pressure. Now I totally agree with you, there are reasons not to use chemical weapons. But the OP asked for reason to use them, so I answered that. – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 09 '17 at 18:20
  • @DavidGrinberg 1. I respect your opinion, but I would appreciate where, in your opinion, he makes that assumption that you are claiming. Because I don't see that. 2. True, Gaddafi didn't use chemical weapons, but after Obama's 2013 red line comment, it was pretty much clear to whole world what was about to happen to Syria. If it hadn't been for John Kerry's slip of the tongue to call for Assad to hand over his chemical weapons, and the subsequent Russian proposal, there is a very high chance U.S would have made a similar intervention as they did in Libya. Witch equal end results. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 18:27
  • @dan-klasson Now you are making unreasonable conjecture based on things that didn't end up happening.... We're getting wildly off topic. If you want to continue please open a chat. – David says Reinstate Monica Apr 09 '17 at 18:28
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – dan-klasson Apr 09 '17 at 18:29
6

I recognize that this question asks for speculation about the internal state of mind of Bashar. While there are many possible motivations, you ask for "real political" reasons that are "realistic". I don't think you care about what I think Barshar could have been thinking, so I will defer to the opinion of experts, and list some possible motivations that have been mentioned in other reliable sources.

  • It could just be a "crazy move".1
  • It could be part of a strategy of escalation against civilians.2
  • It could be that Bashar is war-weary and wants to win quickly. Their resources are depleted and their army exhausted. And, he thought that "the risk of retaliation for a major chemical weapons attack was falling".3
  • "It could be that the attack in Idlib was the work of a rogue or a madman."4
  • It is possible that Bashar didn't fear any retaliation, and the attack could have been calculated to help win the war more quickly, staying in power through the reconstruction.5
  • Bashar could simply be asserting his strength.6

1. Anne Barnard. The Grim Logic Behind Syria's Chemical Weapons. The New York Times. "One of the main defenses offered by Mr. Assad’s allies and supporters, in disputing that his forces carried out the strike on Tuesday, is that such an attack would be “a crazy move,” as one Iranian analyst, Mosib Na’imi, told the Russian state-run news site Sputnik."

2. Id. "it is part of a carefully calculated strategy of escalating attacks against civilians."

3. Emma Graham-Harrison. Syria nerve agent attack: why it made sense to Assad. The Guardian.

4. Thanassis Cambanis. What Could Possibly Motivate a Chemical-Weapons Attack? The Atlantic.

5. Id. "If he can drop chemical weapons on the same day that a conference in Brussels is discussing plans to reconstruct Syria, without any substantive response, then he’ll inch even closer to his current goal of winning a Western-funded rebuilding plan on his own terms."

6. 'Chemical attack' in Syria draws international outrage. Al Jazeera. "They [chemical weapons] are not really serving a substantial military purpose. They can certainly spread terror, and they certainly seem to have a political effect, although it's hard for me to calculate how that would be a positive thing for Bashar al-Assad right now - unless he wants to demonstrate that he's there, no matter what anyone else says or wants to do about it."

K-C
  • 1,105
  • 1
  • 9
  • 20