CFR Daily News Brief 8/29 Focus on Chemical Evidence in Syria

Daily News Brief August 29, 2013

Top of the Agenda: Focus on Chemical Evidence in Syria

U.S. intelligence officials said that evidence tying Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to recent chemical weapons use is not a "slam dunk" (AP)—a reference to faulty intelligence prior to the Iraq war—but concluded that Syrian forces were most likely responsible for the attack that killed hundreds near Damascus last week. In London, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee said that the Syrian government is responsible for chemical weapons attacks (FT), but did not divulge any evidence. Prime Minister David Cameron's government agreed to hold a vote on military action in Syria (WSJ), which is expected early next week. United Nations inspectors in Syria are expected to complete their work on Saturday (NYT), but their mandate precludes them from identifying who is responsible for the alleged use of chemical weapons.

Analysis

"I tend to be wary of the military toolbox, and I strongly opposed the Iraq war and the Afghan 'surge.' But in conjunction with diplomacy, military force can save lives. We saw that in Bosnia and Kosovo under Bill Clinton (who appears to favor a more forceful American approach in Syria), and we saw that just this year in Mali," writes Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times.

"Instead of worrying about U.S. credibility or the president's reputation, the administration should focus on what can be done to reinforce the longstanding norm against the use of weapons of mass destruction," writes Jonathan Mercer in Foreign Affairs.

"The President now has a very broad view of his unilateral war powers; this military action is being rushed, and formal congressional approval is not a priority in light of the President's self-induced credibility crisis and the overwhelming military and diplomatic demands of planning the intervention; the White House doesn't want to expend (or doesn't have) the resources that seeking and winning congressional approval would require; it doesn't want to suffer through the formal national debate; and it fears it might lose the debate," writes Jack Goldsmith on Lawfare.