Rush to Judgment in Syria

 By Reginald Johnson

  Once again there are claims that the Syrian government launched an attack against its own people, using chemical weapons.

  And once again the United States is threatening to punish Syria, even though there has been no independent verification proving that an attack took place and identifying who was responsible.

  Aid workers and opposition leaders charged on Saturday that Syrian aircraft dropped barrel bombs over the town of Douma, near Damascus, releasing a chemical gas which left people suffocating and eventually dying. Press reports indicated that dozens of people may have died.

  Media outlets such as the New York Times and CNN said there had been no outside confirmation that the attack took place and that the Syrian military was responsible.

  Officials of both the government of Syria and Russia, which is helping Syrian forces in their battle against opposition groups during a seven-year civil war, have denied responsibility for the bombing.

  Despite the lack of firm evidence as to who was culpable, President Donald Trump and members of Congress wasted no time in naming Syria, Russia and Iran as the guilty parties.

 Trump, who only last week said that the United States was interested in withdrawing its forces from Syria, put out a Tweet on Sunday morning, labeling Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as an “animal” and blaming  “Putin’s Russia” and Iran, for supporting him. Trump said that there would be a “big price to pay” because of the incident.

   Trump did not spell out what kind of retaliation the U.S. was thinking about.  But the White House’s Homeland Security advisor Thomas P. Bossert said on ABC’s “This Week” program that a military strike was possible.  “Nothing should be taken off the table,” he said.

  U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, one of the most hawkish members of Congress, said Trump must act to punish Syria. Graham told the “This Week” show on ABC that this was a “defining moment”  for Trump’s presidency. “Assad is at it again,” he said.

  So-called moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, also chimed in, telling a reporter that some kind of “targeted attack” against Syria was needed right now.

  Just a year ago, Trump ordered the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syrian targets in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack carried out by the government in which 100 people reportedly died. Trump's action at that time won bipartisan praise.

   Just as there was little questioning about the veracity of the reports about the chemical attack one year ago, there’s also little skepticism being voiced now about the validity of the claims by anti-government militants and so-called aid workers about barrel bombs being dropped on the population in Douma.

   It seems odd that the Syrian military would want to carry out a chemical attack at this time. The government has been winning the civil war against various insurgent groups, including some that are affiliated with Al-qaeda. Syrian forces had encircled the city of Douma and it was really just a matter of time before the Syrian army would take control of the city.

  What would be gained by Syria carrying out this terrible attack? The government would be risking world condemnation as well as the possibility that the Trump administration would change its mind and decide not to begin the withdrawal of some 2000 American military personnel.

   The question of cui bono, or who benefits? has to be asked in assessing the claims about a chemical attack. Clearly opposition forces will stand to benefit if this attack is linked to the Syrian government and the Americans decide to not only launch a punishing military strike to hurt Assad, but also to reconsider the idea of leaving Syria.

   The possibility that this attack was staged by opposition groups or by some intelligence forces from different countries who are aiding them, cannot be ruled out.

   The United States, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been aiding the forces who are trying to topple the Assad government. The U.S. has had military personnel in Syria for several years now in violation of international law, since America was not attacked by Syria and the U.S. had no UN authorization to introduce forces into that country. The Trump administration has maintained that the primary purpose of American forces in Syria has been to dismantle the ISIS terrorist group. However, it has been clear for years that the U.S. has been aiding opposition forces in order get rid of the pro-Russia and pro-Iranian Assad government.  

    We don’t really know at this time who may have carried out the chemical attack, if indeed there was a bombing. The Russians and the Syrians are actually maintaining that the incident may have been fabricated.

   What is needed here is an international investigation overseen by the United Nations to determine the exact nature of this attack and who in fact carried it out. It is wrong for both the Trump administration, members of Congress, and the press to automatically assume that the Syrian government, the Russians or the Iranians were somehow responsible for this attack, simply based on the claims of very self-interested people in the opposition groups or from the “White Helmet” aid group, whose authenticity has been questioned. At this point we do not have firm evidence to lay the blame on the Syrian government and their allies.

   It would be completely irresponsible for the Trump administration to launch another missile strike against Syria, simply based on the limited information that is now available.

   However, given the power of the pro-war, neocon bloc in Washington, symbolized by people like Sen. Graham, combined with Trump’s shaky political situation due to the Russia-gate investigation, and the fact that Trump won praise from both sides of the aisle after his attack on Syria last year,  it is likely that Trump will decide to launch another military strike against Syria.

   Another factor in the situation is what impact super hawk John Bolton, the extremist former UN ambassador, will have on Trump’s thinking. Bolton was recently appointed as Trump’s national security advisor and his work begins Monday.

 As with the recent claims made by the UK about an alleged poisoning attack by Russia against a former British spy in England, it is critical for the media to challenge government claims. The media cannot just roll over and accept sweeping accusations about the possession of, or use of, chemical weapons by other countries without asking tough questions.  That’s because these claims ---- sometimes erroneous --- are often used as a predicate for military action. Military action means loss of life and sometimes that loss of life can be huge, as we have seen in the Iraq War.

  So the press has a crucial job in challenging government officials. Lives are at stake and ultimately the peace of the world is at stake.