The Complexity of Chemical Weapons and the Timber Sycamore Program: An Analysis
In recent years, the debate over the use of chemical weapons in Syria has remained a contentious issue. One vital point in this discourse is the strategic implications of the Timber Sycamore program, a covert operation by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that provided arms and training to Syrian rebels. This article delves into the intricacies of the Timber Sycamore program and addresses why it is improbable that Assad's regime could have used chemical weapons without notable assistance from external powers like Russia and Iran.Understanding the Timber Sycamore Program
The Timber Sycamore program, initiated in 2012 or 2013, was a classified arms supply and training operation by the CIA, supported by various Arab intelligence services including Saudi Arabia. The program aimed to arm and train rebel forces opposing the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. officials claim that the program trained thousands of rebels, although its full extent remains under scrutiny.
Public vs. Secret: The Dance of U.S. Policy
While the program was not officially acknowledged, it became public knowledge when the U.S. Federal Business Opportunities website solicited contract bids for shipping weaponry to Turkey and Jordan. This further raised questions about the transparency of U.S. foreign policy and the unchecked power of the U.S., which can act without the explicit sanction of the United Nations (UN).
Why Assad's Regime Likely Did Not Use Chemical Weapons
The narrative that Syrian rebels, particularly forces like Jaysh-al-Islam, could independently produce and deploy chemical weapons is widely dismissed. There are several compelling reasons for this:
1. Cost and Infrastructure
Chemical weapons are not only expensive but also require an infrastructure not available to third-world rebels. Producing and deploying these weapons demands advanced weapons factories, scientists or weapons specialists, and laboratories. These are resources that insurgents, particularly those in a war-torn region, are unlikely to possess.
2. Lack of Allies and Funding
Jaysh-al-Islam, the group allegedly behind the chemical attack in Douma, is not universally supported. They are largely hated, with both democratic rebels and ISIS viewing them negatively. Given this lack of support and the logistical difficulties in acquiring the necessary equipment and expertise, it is exceedingly improbable that rebels could manage and deploy chemical weapons independent of external help.
3. Common Sense and Strategic Priorities
Food, Armor, and Victory: Insurgent groups, like any armed force, prioritize survival, equipped resources, and ultimate victory. Chemical weapons, while potentially effective, are not the first order of business when the primary concerns are basic sustenance and the likelihood of attacks. A government would, in the context of a war, focus on food, ammunition, and defensive capabilities rather than expending resources on expensive and volatile chemical weapons.
4. Debunking Counter-arguments
Logical Fallacies in Allegations Against Assad: Claims such as 'Why would Assad use such weapons if he's winning' often miss the complexity of the situation. The siege in Douma required significant strategic effort, even for a government in possession of some resources. Additionally, there are historical precedents where less logical behaviors occurred in warfare. The argument that 'Well, a powerful government like Turkey or America could have given it to them' falls apart when the logistical challenges of sneaking in such weapons during a siege are considered.
5. The Role of External Actors
The strategic importance of chemical weapons cannot be understated, as they are highly efficient and indiscriminate. Thus, the likelihood of such weapons being used increases when significant external help, especially from Russia and Iran, is involved. The authorization and logistics of deploying such weapons are too extensive for a third-world country to manage without significant backing.
Conclusion
The debate over chemical weapons in Syria is not merely about policy or0 military tactics, but it also involves a deeper understanding of strategic operations and the complexities of warfare. The Timber Sycamore program illustrates the covert and clandestine nature of warfare in the modern era. The likeliest scenario remains that if chemical weapons were used, it was with the assistance of supportive external actors. The focus should thus be on diplomacy and international cooperation to address the root causes of the conflict in Syria.