John Kerry's address on Syria's chemical weapons leaves little doubt that the US will soon militarily strike the Arab country. In laying out last week's chemical attack at the regime's feet in compelling fashion, and arguing with similar passion that the US could not sit idly by watching, Kerry made it clear that the question is no longer “if” as much as it is “when”. The comparisons between Kerry and a previous secretary of state are inevitable. Ten years ago, then Secretary of State Colin Powell made a presentation to the UN on intelligence that claimed that America had proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). But US intelligence estimates turned out to be wildly off the mark. A possible repeat of that scenario in Syria is being conjured up although the intelligence being gathered on the use of WMDs in Syria may be sounder. It is extremely important that the US intelligence community gets it right this time, and that the Syria chemical weapons assessment is accurate. There is, for example, the argument that the Syrian regime had no need to use chemical weapons to kill over 1,400 civilians since killing civilians in large numbers is what it has been doing every day, using conventional weapons, aerial bombardments and mass executions. The similarities between then and now are uncanny. Iraq and Syria are both Arab countries, have powerful armies, are listed in US books as rogue, are thousands of miles away from US shores but are both considered national security threats. However, the latter may be one key element missing from the Syrian file: wary of another assault on an Arab country, the American public may not be convinced that Syria presents a danger to US national security that requires a military attack. Kerry said it was essential not to let Syria get away with the chemical attack, partly as a deterrent to those who might consider using chemical weapons in the future. However, Washington is just as wary as the American people about the possibility of becoming involved in another quagmire. That is why Kerry said the US was considering a "limited narrow act", enough to save Obama from the embarrassment of doing nothing in the face of a poison gas attack but limited enough not to drag the US, which will have to go it almost entirely alone, into the conflict. Kerry did not explain why he was certain that a US military attack would bring the Syrian regime to the negotiating table. On the contrary, he basically said a US attack would not be intended to affect the civil war there. Nor did he address the issue that a punitive military response without a UN Security Council mandate could be illegal under international law. Perhaps the biggest question is why now. The UN states that to date, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the Syrian civil war, but only now, after a fraction of that figure is killed with chemical weapons comes the show of outrage and imminent action. Are the gassed dead any more dead than those who were blown to bits with munitions? The timing of any strikes may be complicated by Obama's departure late on Tuesday for Sweden and a G20 summit in Russia. It would not look presidential if Obama ordered the strikes while abroad. But order he will. Washington has stated its case and will punish Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad for the "brutal and flagrant" chemical weapons attack. There is no going back.
