Current US Chemical Weapons Stockpile Comprises 3,134 tons-- But Some Has Leaked and Been Lost; Some More May be Buried

According to the US Army:

"The Blue Grass chemical weapons stockpile comprises more than 500 tons of blister and nerve agent in weapons."  

This stockpile includes sarin, VX and mustard, enough to (theoretically) kill millions of humans, packed into weapons and presumably ready for deployment.  The weapons are being held pending construction of a facility to destroy them. But this is an expensive undertaking.  How does $10.6 billion sound to destroy remaining US chemical weapons (only 10% of the original stockpile) at two sites?   

The Blue Grass facility currently employs over 1200 workers.  Destruction operations are scheduled to begin in 2020, despite the Chemical Weapons Convention agreement (signed by the US) that all weapons were to be destroyed by April 2012. According to the Army:

The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program’s mission is to destroy the last two remaining U.S. chemical weapons stockpiles – 2,611 tons of mustard agent in projectiles and mortars at the U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot in Colorado, and 523 tons of mustard and nerve agent in rockets and projectiles at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky. 

Here is the US Army's map of its stockpiles, including chemical munitions still in storage and those already destroyed.   It is not like the old days, when you simply put unwanted chemical weapons on board ships, sent them offshore and scuttled the boats and the chemical weapons.  Check out some of the many places the US admits it simply dumped chemical weapons in the ocean.  Reportedly 32 dumps were off US shores and 42 were off foreign shores. Consider the alternate method for getting rid of chemical agents at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a home of chemical weapons since 1942.  A 12,000 foot deep well was drilled in 1961 and unwanted chemical agents flushed down the drain.  After earthquakes (710 earthquakes in 3.5 years) started appearing, the army had to pump the chemical stew back up and find another way to get rid of it.

According to a 2006 CDC brochure, and recently updated CDC docs here and here, additional non stockpile CW materials include "recovered chemical weapons, chemical samples and binary chemical weapons":

The original stockpile contained 63 million pounds of chemical weapons disseminated at eight sites in the continental United States and at Johnston Atoll in the Pacific. Additional non-stockpile materiel, such as buried chemical warfare materiel, is located at more than 200 sites in the United States and U.S. territories.

Nowadays, ridding ourselves of the chemical weapons stockpile is totally different:  you build fabulously complex and expensive facilities before destroying a single weapon.  (But it is okay to let them leak on-site, endangering Americans; see below.) At this rate, assuming on-time performance, we might be rid of all our chemical weapons in another ten years.  And be at least $10.6 billion poorer.  

Although the US is paying a king's ransom to safely dispose of its remaining chemical weapons, it failed to prevent repeated leaks of sarin at the Blue Grass arsenal--at least 3 times in the last six years. The media reported as recently as last year, and also in 2007 and 2008, that sarin was leaking. When the international chemical weapons inspectors who verify destruction do an inspection, they will probably not find all 523 tons of agent on site to be destroyed, and the leaks may be cited as the reason why.  Might some "leaked" or buried agents have found their way overseas?  

My point is simply that accurately accounting for tons of chemical weapons is no slam dunk, here or elsewhere.  When you have leaks, agents can go missing despite controls.  With over 200 US sites that contained CW materiel, it is virtually impossible to have an accurate inventory.

UPDATE Sept 12:  The NY Times yesterday agreed with me that "monitoring and securing unconventional weapons have proved challenging..."-- but the Times confined the challenge to Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Syria.  With no attribution, the Times cited a "Pentagon study" that claimed 75,000 troops would be needed to secure chemical weapons in a war zone.  Talk about a wild-ass guess.  Is the Times' reportage aimed at souring the US on Syria's offer to give up its chemical weapons?

Adding insult to injury, the same Times article misleads on the status of US compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).  The CWC gave a few nations, including the US and Russia, an extension until 2012 to destroy all their chemicals weapons, with no permitted extensions beyond that time.  Both the US and Russia maintain several thousand tons of chemical weapons.  Each is noncompliant with the treaty.  However, the Times stated, "The nations with the biggest arsenals — the United States and Russia — have received deadline extensions"-- without informing readers the final deadline was missed and we do not plan to destroy all our CW for another ten years!

Below is the layout of the fabulously complex /costly Blue Grass Chemical Agent destruction facility.

Taking A Clear Look at Syrian CW / The Atlantic

Finally, a knowledgeable former state department insider deconstructs the Syria situation. Read William R. Polk's entire article in the Atlantic, or just this crucial portion, part 4.

Who Are the Possible Culprits and What Would be Their Motivations?

            Since such information as we have is sketchy and questionable, we should seek to understand motives.  As a historian, dealing as one always does, with incomplete information, I have made it a rule when trying to get at the “truth” in any contentious issue to ask a series of questions among which are who benefits from a given action and what would I have done in a given situation?   Look briefly at what we think we now know in light of these questions:

First, who gains by the action.  I do not see what Assad could have gained from this gas attack.  It is evident that while the area in which it took place is generally held to be "disputed" territory, the government was able to arrange for the UN inspection team to visit it but not, apparently, to guarantee their safety there. If Assad were to initiate an attack, it would be more logical for him to pick a target under the control of the rebels. 

Second, to have taken the enormous risk of retaliation or at least loss of support by some of his allies (notably the Russians) by using this horrible weapon, he must have thought of it either as a last ditch stand or as a knockout blow to the insurgents.  Neither appears to have been the case.  Reports in recent weeks suggest that the Syrian government was making significant gains against the rebels.  No observer has suggested that its forces were losing.   All indications are that the government’s command and control system not only remains intact but that it still includes among its senior commanders and private soldiers a high proportion of Sunni Muslims. Were the regime in decline, it would presumably have purged those whose loyalties were becoming suspect (i.e. the Sunni Muslims) or they would have bolted for cover.  Neither happened. 

Moreover, if it decided to make such an attack, I should have thought that it would have aimed at storage facilities, communications links, arms depots or places where commanders congregated.  The suburbs of Damascus offered none of these opportunities for a significant, much less a knockout, blow. 

Third, as students of guerrilla warfare have learned guerrillas are dispersed but civilians are concentrated.  So weapons of mass destruction are more likely to create hostility to the user than harm to the opponent. The chronology of the Syrian civil war shows that the government must be aware of this lesson as it has generally held back its regular troops (which were trained and armed to fight foreign invasion) and fought its opponents with relatively small paramilitary groups backed up by air bombardment. Thus, a review of the fighting over the last two years suggests that its military commanders would not have seen a massive gas attack either as a “game changer” or an option valuable enough to outweigh the likely costs. 

So, what about the enemies of the Assad regime?   How might such an attack have been to their advantage? 

First, a terrorizing attack might have been thought advantageous because of the effect on people who are either supporting the regime or are passive.  There are indications, for example, that large numbers of the pathetic Palestinian refugees are pouring out their camps in yet another "displacement."  The number of Syrian refugees is also increasing.  Terror is a powerful weapon and historically and everywhere was often used. Whoever initiated the attack might have thought, like those who initiated the attack on Guernica, the bombing of Rotterdam and the Blitz of London, that the population would be so terrorized that they might give up or at least cower.  Then as food shortages and disease spread, the economy would falter.  Thus the regime might collapse. 

That is speculative, but the second benefit to the rebels of an attack is precisely what has happened: given the propensity to believe everything evil about the Assad regime,  daily emphasized by the foreign media, a consensus, at least in America, has been achieved  is that it must have been complicit.  This consensus should make it possible for outside powers to  take action against the regime and join in giving the insurgents the money, arms and training. 

We know that the conservative Arab states, the United States, other Western powers and perhaps Israel have given assistance to the rebels for the last two years, but the outside aid has not been on a scale sufficient to enable them to defeat the government. They would need much more and probably would also need foreign military intervention as happened in Libya in April 2011 to overthrow Muamar Qaddafi.  The rebels must have pondered that situation.  We know that foreign military planners have. (See “Military Intervention in Syria” Wikileaks reprinted on August 25, 2013, memorandum of a meeting in the Pentagon in 2011.) Chillingly, the just cited Wikileaks memorandum notes that the assembled military and intelligence officers “don’t believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi [sic] move against Benghazi.” (See Time, March 17, 2011.)  As in Libya,  evidence of an ugly suppression of inhabitants might justify and lead to foreign military intervention. 

Clearly, Assad had much to lose and his enemies had much to gain.  That conclusion does not prove who did it, but it should give us pause to find conclusive evidence which we do not now have...

Syria: Claims Without Evidence, Expanding Obama's Mandate for War / NYT

Kerry persists today in making outsize claims that he fails to support.  My comments are in parentheses.

Secretary of State John Kerry, in his remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged Congress to vote in favor of the president ordering a military strike and argued that “the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting...” [Really? Please explain why helping the side of al Qaeda and islamic mercenaries will reduce risk to the US.--Nass]

"We can tell you beyond any reasonable doubt that our evidence proves the Assad regime prepared for this attack, warned its forces to use gas masks,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the government of President Bashar al-Assad. [Please provide the evidence, sir.--Nass]

“We have physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when,” he said. “Not one rocket landed in regime-controlled territory. All of them landed in opposition-controlled or contested territory. We have a map, physical evidence, showing every geographical point of impact — and that is concrete.” [But of course a false flag operation by rebel supporters would send its rockets to such targets.--Nass]

Mr. Kerry argued against any restrictions in the Congressional authorization, including whether ground forces would be prohibited. He emphasized that Mr. Obama had no intention to put “boots on the ground.” But he said that if Syria imploded and chemical weapons depots were at risk of being raided by militants, then ground troops might be required to secure those locations. He said such an action would most likely be undertaken with allies....  [So now we are saying no boots on the ground unless we change our mind...is this designed to ensure Congress will balk at an attack--or an attempt to gain carte blanche for the President to open up a new front in the so-called war on terror?--Nass]

Mr. Kerry warned that the turmoil in Syria, if not contained, might allow extremists to find haven in a country with chemical weapons. [Which, if you read my post below, could actually be the United States, which has failed to rid itself of all its chemical weapons by the agreed-upon 2012 deadline.] That nexus of chemical weapons depots and militant fighters tied to international terrorist organizations, he said, could threaten American allies that border Syria, American troops in the region and perhaps even United States territory...

Well, US chemical weapons (yes, sarin nerve gas) does threaten Americans at home--because US government stocks have been leaking on US soil, threatening soldiers and civilians!  As recently as last year, but also in 2007 and 2008 sarin escaped--repeatedly, at the same military base.  I guess we are really worried about the threat of sarin, except when it menaces our own bases and troops.  Why was there no commitment to properly house it -- on the same army base where billions are being spent to create a "safe facility" to destroy chemical weapons?

Mr. Kerry has been the administration’s most ardent advocate of military action, while General Dempsey has written to Congress warning of the potential costs and likely risks of significant intervention... 

General Dempsey told Congress in April that he was not sure the United States “could identify the right people” to equip in the Syrian opposition. “It’s actually more confusing on the opposition side today than it was six months ago,” General Dempsey said.

What are chemical weapons, who has them, are they in compliance with international law, and what can be done to protect people from such weapons?

There are many types of chemicals that have been designated as chemical weapons by the international body established by the UN to prevent the use of chemical weapons. It is called the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and is headquartered in the Netherlands.  Only seven nations are not parties to the OPCW.  Israel and Myanmar (formerly Burma) signed but failed to ratify the 1993 agreement.  Five other nations failed to sign it:  Syria, South Sudan, North Korea, Angola and Egypt.

Nations who are parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention/OPCW agreed to destroy all their chemical weapons by May 2012, but most have failed to meet that deadline, including the United States.  Furthermore, it is by no means certain that all nations possessing chemical weapons declared them, so information on existing stocks of such weapons is incomplete.

Had all 189 nation members of the OPCW complied with the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention's required destruction of chemical weapons, there would be many fewer such weapons available that could be transferred and used.  The US still maintains large stockpiles of sarin and other chemical weapons.  This US Army map shows you where it was and where it still is located.

So when Obama says that we know Syria's Assad has chemical weapons, Assad could be saying the same thing about us!

From an OPCW report:

Chemical Weapons Destruction Under Way

The 7 States Parties (A State Party, Albania, India, Iraq, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America) which have declared chemical weapons must destroy 8.67 million items, including munitions and containers containing in total, 71,196 metric tonnes of extremely toxic chemical agents. Albania, India and a third country have completed destruction. By comparison, a tiny drop of a nerve agent, no larger than the head of a pin, can kill an adult human being within minutes after exposure.The OPCW verifies that the destruction process is irreversible. At the same time, States Parties in the process of destroying chemical weapons are obliged to place the highest priority on the safety of people and on protecting the environment.

55,939, or 78.57%, of the world's declared stockpile of 71,196 metric tonnes of chemical agent have been verifiably destroyed. (As at 28/02/2013)

3.95, or 45.56%, of the 8.67 million chemical munitions and containers covered by the CWC have been verifiably destroyed. (As at 28/02/2013)

The OPCW has developed an internationally unique, peer-reviewed, and certified analytical database, containing information on over 3,400 chemical weapons-related compounds. This database is essential for on-site verification activities of OPCW inspection teams, and is also made available to States Parties.

So, although although all 189 member nations agreed to destroy all chemical weapons in their possession by March 2012, less than half of CW weapons in munitions (those ready for immediate delivery to targets) had been destroyed by the deadline, including those possessed by the United States.

OPCW and CDC have posted instructions on how to protect oneself indoors from a chemical weapons attack.

UPDATE Sept. 26:  From the Anniston, Alabama Star:  A detailed history of the US chemical weapons stockpile, leaks and destruction. An excerpt:

For years, workers in chemical suits dealt directly with the chemical weapons, taking them out of storage, moving them to destruction facilities where they could be destroyed or neutralized through a chemical process. 
It was, by all accounts, dangerous work. The chemical munitions were indeed munitions, capable of exploding. The M55 chemical rockets that made up much of the arsenal, both in Anniston and elsewhere, were known to be leaky. News accounts from the 1990s and onward refer to the dangers of the aging rockets in the stockpile. But a history written by officials at Edgewood arsenal states that the rockets first started leaking in 1966, shortly after they were built. Abrams also confirmed that the rockets began leaking a few years after they were built...
Monteverde said the design of the weapons has made destruction a difficult problem at every facility.
"They were never designed to be disassembled," he said. "It was always thought, at the time of their manufacture, that they were designed to be used." 

Disingenuous John Kerry: NOW we can prove sarin was used

Washington Post today:  Sarin gas used in Syria attack, Kerry says

That's great, John.  But -- does that mean you were trying to drum up support for an attack before you could prove chemicals weapons were used?

Come on, John, you know this is not the real question that needs to be answered.  What we need to know is who actually sent the sarin.  Why are you steering this debate in the wrong direction?

UPDATE Sept 5:  The BBC's Washington bureau explains the various methods that are being used by the Obama administration to convince a recalcitrant Congress and American people to start a new military adventure.  It also highlights the skeptics.

Method Number 6 is:  Get your lieutenants to present the case

Do the lieutenants seem to be enjoying this job?

The 2011 LA Times tells us that the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures weren't cheap:  2.5 Trillion $ and counting.  About $10,000 for each American.  It was all borrowed.  When will we have to pony up?  What will Syria cost?  And what will Syria look like after we join the fray?  Anything like our 'successes' in fractured Iraq and Afghanistan?

The 2013 LA Times ups the ante:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, with medical care and disability benefits weighing heavily for decades to come, according to a new analysis.

The bill to taxpayers so far has been $2 trillion, plus $260 billion in interest on the resulting debt. By comparison, the current federal budget is $3.8 trillion.

Sorry, $20,000 for each American.  Consider these wars your second mortgage.  And it's collecting interest.  How much are you willing to pay for Syria?

Congressman Raul Grijalva: If America wants Assad to respect international law, it must respect it, too / Fox

    

From Fox News comes this piece from progressive Democratic member of Congress Raul Grijalva:

Now that President Obama has made up his mind about taking America to war with yet another Muslim country, he wants Congress to get on board. 

To his credit, he’s seeking congressional authorization, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973, but he has given every indication that he’ll invade Syria irrespective of approval by majorities in the House and the Senate. 

Presidents have done it before, without congressional authorization, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton.

This would be a shame. Not only would it mean that the U.S. would be flouting, somewhat ostentatiously, international law, but it would also mean that this would be the eighth Muslim-majority country with which America has been at war during Obama’s term as president. Count them: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Mali, Libya, Somalia, and now Syria.

This weekend, the White House came courting to Congress, showing evidence and secret intelligence to make the case for military action. What was remarkably lacking, however, throughout all the pomp and circumstance, was any other tool in their intervention toolkit.

• No talk about exhaustive diplomacy with all stakeholders involved. 
• No talk about violence prevention. 
• No talk about the International Criminal Court. 
• No talk about working with the U.N. Security Council. 

In fact, quite the opposite: as evidenced by Secretary Kerry’s speech on Friday and Obama’s speech on Saturday, an implicit dismissal of all of these options. In fact, Kerry directly dismissed the U.N.’s role and its Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, as did the president.

This is unprecedented, especially for a Democratic White House. This also puts the president’s main argument – that the violation of international law, vis-à-vis chemical weapons usage, is the main pretext for invasion – in a precarious position.

Why, because the president, unless he gets clearance from the U.N. Security Council before/after he gets clearance (or not) from members of Congress, will also be in direct violation of international law.

That means that our president is going to war with another country’s president for violating international law while our president is fully prepared to violate international law. How’s that for international norm setting and standard bearing?

America must remember that, at present, there is no international legal justification for an attack on Syria. 

America would need a United Nations Security Council resolution, backing the invasion, which it has yet to secure. 

This is a clear double-standard and one that erodes the ethical fabric forged in 1945, within the United Nations Charter, and before, in the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928.

America should care about international law and justice, and we should use all necessary measures and mechanisms in place for such legal enforcement, to hold Assad – and possibly some of the rebel groups --accountable for crimes against humanity and war crimes...

Secretary Kerry once agreed with this thinking, reaffirming, during his confirmation hearings in January 2013, “a U.N. resolution is a necessary ingredient to provide the legal basis for military action in an emergency”. 

And while this crisis in Syria is undoubtedly an emergency, in light of the concern that the Assad government used chemical weapons on his people, we have had plenty of time – and tens of thousands of deaths – to make the legal case to the U.N. Security Council and to the US Congress, something the Obama administration has failed to do.

If the administration wants to avoid undermining almost a century of international law, and four decades of Congressional legislation, President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and Ambassador Samantha Power are going to have to make the case to Congress and to the Security Council.

America, that is the hard work that is necessary. There is no excuse for a half-baked case and there is no excuse for claims of urgency when tens of thousands of Syrians have already died with little fanfare in Washington.

If America wants the Assad government – or any other government for that matter – to obey by the strictures of international law, the West must set the standard for responsible adherence.

Invading Syria now not only fails on that front but also further undermines the West’s ability to forge agreement around this entire premise. And what a crime that would constitute.

Swine research confirms flu shots can increase risk of flu and cause more severe illness/ CIDRAP

Meantime, new research by US government scientists confirms what Canadian (and some other) researchers have been saying for years:  flu shots can actually increase your risk of developing influenza.  In a piece titled Swine study suggests flu vaccination may sometimes backfire, researchers found that vaccinating pigs for flu could also give them a more severe disease:

During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, Canadian researchers identified a greater risk of infection in those who had been vaccinated against seasonal flu, a puzzling finding that researchers are still unraveling, including a group yesterday that revealed more about a mechanism for the process through experiments on pigs.

The heightened risk identified during the 2009 pandemic threatened to disrupt vaccination efforts in Canada, and the findings raised tough issues for policymakers, especially when studies in the United States and other countries contradicted the Canadian findings. However, in 2010 a large study by a Canadian team put an exclamation point on the earlier findings, reporting that the risk of needing treatment for pandemic flu was 1.4 to 2.4 times greater in those who had been vaccinated against seasonal flu in the previous year...

The researchers vaccinated piglets that were younger than 6 months old and hadn't been exposed to flu before against H1N2 to explore whether vaccine-induced antibodies might play a role in exacerbating respiratory symptoms. They found some of the piglets got sick with severe pneumonia and had severe lung damage after they were infected with the 2009 H1N1 virus, suggesting that cross-reactive antibodies triggered by the flu vaccine made symptoms worse after infection with a different flu strain...

In an editorial on the new findings, published in the same issue, James Crowe Jr, MD, wrote that the new findings show why health leaders should consider the principle "First, do no harm" when pursuing new ways to battle flu epidemics and pandemics. Crowe is a microbiologist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and is director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Center.

He noted that achieving a flu vaccine that would provoke lasting protection across a range of virus subtypes would be a major medical achievement, but eagerness to move forward with next-generation flu vaccines should be tempered with a focus on safety and minimizing risk.

The need to understand the molecular forces that direct antibody-enhanced virus replication or altered immune response isn't limited to vaccine effects, given that antibody-enhanced disease can occur in nature, Crowe wrote. He added that studies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic suggested that cross-reactive antibodies may have played a role in severe disease seen in otherwise healthy young adults...

Here is the link to the original paper.

Nonsense: 1. Vaccinate for flu now 2. Protection starts decreasing about two weeks after a shot 3. Flu almost never appears before December / NBC News

Vaccinate your children for flu asap, say the experts.  From NBC News:
"Get your kids their flu vaccines now, pediatricians advise."

“With the exception of children less than 6 months of age, everybody should go out and get their influenza vaccine as soon as the influenza vaccines are available,” Dr. Michael Brady of Nationwide Children's Hospital and chairman of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the Academy told NBC News...

It also takes a week or so for the flu vaccine to take effect and provide full protection.
“Most time, flu in the U.S. peaks in January, February, sometimes into March,” Brady said.  “If people go get their vaccines as soon as their provider has them available, they should feel comfortable that they'll have protection for the whole flu season.” 

There are two potential problems with getting flu shots early.  First, vaccine protection decreases rapidly and those who are older or have less robust immune systems may have lost protection before the flu appears.  

Second, frequently the vaccine does not protect against the strains that cause disease each season.  But until flu appears, we don't know if the vaccine will protect.  By waiting to vaccinate until late fall, you will know whether the flu shot is likely to provide any benefit at all against that year's flu strains.

Back from the Brink, Finally / AP

Obama finally "got it" that his red line and his hawkish posturing left him standing on the brink, alone.  Hollande might jump off the cliff with him, but then again, he might not.  US Ambassadors had fanned out to foreign capitals, but were being rebuffed -- no one wanted to join a coalition of hubris.  After all, convincing evidence of exactly what happened on August 21, and who is truly responsible, has yet to surface. From the Globe and AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Short on support at home and allies abroad, President Barack Obama unexpectedly stepped back from a missile attack against Syria on Saturday and instead asked Congress to support a strike punishing Bashar Assad’s regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons...

Administration officials said Obama appeared set on ordering a strike until Friday evening. After a long walk in near 90-degree temperatures around the White House grounds with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the president told his aide he had changed his mind.

These officials said Obama initially drew pushback in a two-hour session attended by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, CIA Director John Brennan, national security adviser Susan Rice and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco. They declined to say which of the participants had argued against Obama’s proposal.

Whatever Congress ultimately decides, the developments marked a stunning turn.

France is Obama’s only major foreign ally to date for a strike, public polling shows support is lukewarm in the United States, and dozens of lawmakers in both parties have signed a letter urging Obama not to act without their backing. Outside the gates of the White House, the chants of protesters could be heard as the president stepped to a podium set up in the Rose Garden.

Had he gone ahead with a military strike, Obama would have become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans. Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursuing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens.

Thin: The US Gov't Intelligence Report on Syria's CW / NY Times

Here is the report and it says very little.

The report makes the case that a CW attack occurred.  I think by now everyone agrees it occurred.  The issue of import, however, is who did it, not whether it happened.

The report also tells us, as if we didn't already know, that Assad has chemical weapons and delivery systems that could have been used.  And, he has done it before!  Well, okay, but did he do it THIS time?  That is the real question.

The intelligence dances around the issues.  For example, the report language seems more lawyerly than anything else:

"We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely," and "We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21."  And another one:  "We continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal..."

The report says it has satellite images of rockets being launched from regime-controlled sites--but fails to produce any images.  It claims to have intercepted communications confirming use by the regime, but releases no transcript.  Revealing satellite images and communications intercepts would not expose any hidden sources or methods, although this was the reason given by Secretary of State Kerry (and by this report) for hiding intelligence details.

Being familiar with the quality of evidence brought forward in other CW and BW investigations, I can only say that the quality of what was revealed today is pathetic.  How to describe it?

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

AP UPDATE:  

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is poised to become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans.

Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens...

CBS News:

WASHINGTON - The White House has provided a series of briefings for key lawmakers over the past 24 hours, trying to combat complaints that Congress is not being consulted on a potential U.S. strike in Syria. Still, many members want more: They want any military action to be put to a vote first.But their own schedule makes that unlikely. Congress has been gone for a month and doesn't return to Washington for a week and a half.

That didn't stop more than 160 House members - Democrats and Republicans - from signing letters this week urging the president to "receive authorization from Congress" before striking Syria... 

I JUST MOVED--New email address, phone, and other contact info

Meryl Nass, MD
45 Beals Ave.
Ellsworth, Maine 04605

(H) 207 412-0004
(C) 207 522-5229

EMAIL:  merylnass@gmail.com

Who Used and Controls Chemical Weapons? Not a Slam Dunk / AP and Toronto Star

From the Associated Press/ Toronto Star:

WASHINGTON— The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say...

Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the UN Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, nor allies’ concerns would affect their plans. But the complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to Al-Qaeda-backed rebels later.

Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.

Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.

U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad’s forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.

In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was “undeniable,” a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.

Shouldn't Congress be Consulted?/ Military Officers/ Francoise Hollande/ Angela Merkel

NBC News queried 700 adults on Aug 28-29, 2013.   The most interesting answer I found to be the following:

Q12  Do you think that President Obama should or should not be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria?

Should be required to receive approval ................... 79
Should not be required to receive approval ............. 16
Depends (VOL) ........................................................ 1
Not sure .................................................................... 4

A WaPo editorial agreed, titled:  
The Post’s View:  President Obama should consult Congress before striking Syria

The media have been finding quotes from Senator and Candidate Obama, and Senator Biden, in which both contradicted the current Presidential stance: 

As a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, Mr. Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."

Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.In 1998, Biden said on the Senate floor, "To be sure, the commander in chief ensures that the president has the sole power to direct U.S. military forces in combat. But that power - except in very few limited instances - derives totally from congressional authority."

From the WaPo comes a piece quoting former military officers and current anonymous officers who question the wisdom of a proposed attack:

... The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.

“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”

Francoise Hollande says France is ready, whatever that might mean:  “There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them,” Hollande said, according to Reuters. “We are ready. We will decide our position in close liaison with our allies.”

UPDATE Sept 7:  After the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, French President Francois Hollande contradicted his foreign minister, saying France too would wait to hear from the UN analysts.

Germany, on the other hand, is facing national elections soon.  German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Neue Osnabrücker newspaper that Berlin’s participation in a U.S.-led coalition has “neither been asked nor is it being considered by us.”  Guess Angela Merkel isn't ready to put German participation to a vote.

France too puts on the brakes / WaPo

Finally, those who first jumped on the bandwagon start asking for proof.  From the WaPo:

French officials also are calling for a delay in action until U.N. inspectors conclude their report. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman, according to Bloomberg News.

The latest developments suggest that Washington’s allies will insist on waiting at least until next week before launching what initially appeared to be an imminent strike on Syria...

British officials on Thursday released an intelligence assessment on the alleged chemical attack and a document outlining the legal justification for a robust response.

The three-page intelligence report offered various degrees of certainty about the Assad government’s culpability for the Aug. 21 attack. It said “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.” But it also categorized the government’s involvement in the alleged attacks as “highly likely,” rather than definite, adding that it is not clear what would have motivated Assad and his deputies to carry out “an attack of this scale at this time.”

Skepticism in Britain and elsewhere is dashing U.S. hopes of quickly securing a broad international coalition.

UPDATE from Agence France Presse:

While other US allies, including France, have called for action on Syria, it appears unlikely they would join US military action absent a UN Security Council mandate, which has no chance of evading a Russian veto. 

Meanwhile, Mint Press News presents interviews suggesting chemical weapons were transferred by Saudi officials to rebels in Ghouta.  This is by no means smoking gun evidence, but is another possible scenario:

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said...

Cameron: "I get that and the government will act accordingly" (No UK intervention) / Guardian

Yesterday's top fun quote, from Conservative Member of Parliament Adam Holloway:

Friends stop their friends getting into their cars at the end of an evening and driving away drunk:  I think it is one job of a British Prime Minister to stop American Presidents driving drunk, as George W Bush did (in my opinion) with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unless I am missing something, I think David Cameron should be doing the same with President Obama now. The fact that we hear that Tony Blair thinks intervening in Syria a good idea ought to mean that all sensible people run in the opposite direction.  

The Express says that 80% of the UK public is against armed intervention; 12% are undecided and only 8% agreed with the Prime Minister.  

The House of Commons (unexpectedly) had its way with David Cameron today. From tonight's Guardian:

David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.

In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour...

Furthermore, as the BBC explains:

in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria [even] if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

By rejecting a UK strike whether or not better evidence of Assad's role emerged, Parliament seems to be expressing its distrust of government claims and doctored evidence.  No doubt Colin Powell's 2003 claims of WMD evidence cast a long shadow.  Heaping salt on the wound, Cameron was then asked to guarantee to Parliament he would abide by the vote of Parliament and not take things into his own hands:

Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs: "I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.

"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.

"I get that and the government will act accordingly."

The article goes on:

The shock result means that Cameron becomes the first British prime minister in decades unable to deliver British troops to a joint military operation with the US. Whitehall sources had said Barack Obama was willing to show some patience for Britain but he would need to launch strikes against Syria before he leaves for the G20 summit in Russia next Tuesday. The New York Times reported on Thursday night that Obama is preparing to act alone at the weekend.

Britain failed to present persuasive evidence that the Assad regime was the perpetrator of the attack:

Opening the debate in a packed Commons, the prime minister ...acknowledged that the intelligence agencies had not delivered a definitive verdict.

Philippe Sands, a leading expert in international law, said the document failed to provide a "sound or persuasive legal argument" in favour of military action...

Miliband said the prime minister had failed to prove definitively that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack as he intensified the pressure on Cameron by pressing an alternative Labour amendment to a vote...

UPDATE:  NY Times emphasizes British scepticism toward American moralism:

In the British Parliament on Thursday, the theme of doubt was foremost.
Paul Flynn, of Labour, said that prior uses of chemical weapons, as against the Kurds, had not drawn such a response.

“Is not the real reason we are here today not the horror at these weapons — if that horror exists — but as a result of the American president having foolishly drawn a red line, so that he is now in the position of either having to attack or face humiliation?” he asked...

CBW attacks in Syria and elsewhere: Proving Who Did It Is the Hardest Part

Identifying an attack with a nerve agent (organophosphate) is not at all difficult.  The symptoms are characteristic:  pinpoint pupils, increased secretions from all orifices, suffocation.  They are the same symptoms experienced by agricultural workers accidentally sprayed with organophosphate insecticides. (I treated one such case 30 years ago.)

This is said to be the poison in the school lunch that killed children in India last month. Blood levels of cholinesterase are markedly reduced, and increase as those affected recover.  Dead bodies have no signs of physical trauma. Autopsies of dead bodies or blood tests from the living provide the answer.

Recovery is often incomplete, however.

There are several reasons a perpetrator may choose to use chemical or biological weapons, not least of which is the difficulty identifying who used it.  Unlike a bullet, it does not come from the direction of the enemy.  The cost is relatively low, there are many methods for dissemination, and use of a weapon of mass destruction gets peoples' attention.  These features can make it an ideal weapon to use when your goal is to implicate--loudly--an innocent party.

Nerve agents were first developed by Germany before and during World War II.  They are in the same chemical class as organophosphate pesticides, so their method of manufacture is well known, and they can be produced or purchased by nations or by subnational groups.

Examples of use of organophosphate nerve agents include the sarin attack on Tokyo's subways in 1995 by the Aum Shinrikyo cult; attacks on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and on Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988; and contamination of clothing worn by black rebels during the Rhodesian civil war in the late 1970s. Frank Chikane, general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, experienced a failed assassination attempt by organophosphates in 1989, while visiting the US.

In none of these cases was there initial clarity about who perpetrated the attacks.

How does one get clarity regarding the source of the attack, especially in a situation (like Syria) where more than one actor may have reasons to use the agent or to cast blame on an enemy?

1. The agents should be identified, and evidence that the putative perpetrator had access to this agent should be sought.
2. The delivery system (probably missiles in the case of Syria) is more likely to be identifiable in terms of its source than the agent itself.  What type of missile, where built, what markings does it contain? News reports suggest missiles have been identified.
3. Communications are being monitored by NSA and others.  What is known about orders to use the agent(s)? Noah Shachtman, writing in Foreign Policy, suggests this evidence may be contradictory in the case of Syria.
4. Syria is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention and is known to have stockpiles of chemical agents at various sites.  Satellite photos and other intelligence may provide information regarding movement and launching of these weapons.
5. Whoever the perpetrator, they always have a logical motive for using chemical weapons.  In the case of the Assad government, it is difficult to see any rationale for a chemical weapons attack on civilians, given the anticipated US response.  

According to today's NY Times:

...American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground...
Administration officials said that communications between military commanders intercepted after Wednesday’s attack provided proof that the assault was not the result of a rogue unit acting against orders. It is unclear how much detail about these communications, if any, will be made public...

There is also the issue of international law.  The US has not been attacked.  It has no legal right to unilaterally decide to "punish" Syria for using chemical weapons on its people.  The Chemical Weapons Convention and other United Nations precedents provide the current legally approved regime for dealing with allegations of chemical weapons use.

As today's NY Times also notes,

... Yet with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval...

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that whatever evidence the administration put forward would be the American intelligence community’s “most important single document in a decade.”

The Obama administration, Mr. Cordesman said, needs to use intelligence about the attack “as a key way of informing the world, of building up trust in U.S. policy and intelligence statements, and in moving U.S strategic communications from spin to convincing truth.”

The Washington Post says,

...But the Obama administration’s efforts to build a legal case are encountering skepticism from U.N. officials and other experts, including former Republican and Democratic State Department lawyers, who argue that the use of force against the Syrian regime, absent a U.N. Security Council resolution, would be illegal...

And then the final question:  how would US military action actually advance US objectives in the area? Again today's NY Times and (surprisingly) Rep. Boehner cut to the chase:

As the White House now considers direct military action in Syria, something it has resisted for two years, Speaker John A. Boehner wrote a letter on Wednesday to Mr. Obama asking the president to provide a “clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action — which is a means, not a policy — will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy.” 

The WSJ noted: 

Separately, 116 House lawmakers—98 Republicans and 18 Democrats—signed a letter to Mr. Obama, demanding he seek congressional authorization for a military strike.

The markets knew at 9 am Wednesday EDT that the rush to war had run up against roadblocks.  Silver dropped by 2% before 10 am and gold also fell sharply.  It took the newspapers a few hours longer to figure out that the imminent US offensive strike had been halted.