Alleged Chemical Attack, August 21, 2013

On the very early morning of August 21, 2013, rebel and opposition reports claim, at least three areas of the Damascus countryside (Reef Dimashq) were subjected to unspecified chemical gas attack from Syrian government forces. Initial reports described dozens dead in a attacks on Ghouta, a broad region of several small town and fields between. The areas of Irbin, Moadamiya, Zamalka, Kafr Batna, Hamouriya, Saqba, Ain Terma, and Douma (at least) have been specified in different reports, with Jobar specified in a very few others for a possible clue (see here). A map published by the New York Times shows most of the places where dead were reported from, spanning from the north-east to the south-west of Damascus suburbs.

Opposition reports cite a combined death toll as high as 1,800, and confirmed numbers in the low-to-mid hundreds (see death toll, below). There are photos and videos of at apparent casualties suggesting a death toll at least well into the triple digits, including women and children. These tend to show no outward wounds, suggesting they could well have died from chemical exposure as alleged.

The reports came almost to the hour a year after Obama's often-cited "red line" speech and just two days after the arrival in Damascus of the United Nations chemical weapons investigation team set to look into the March 19 Khan al-Assal gas attack and two others. The government has said one reason for the allegations now is to distract from their work and its limited mandate of two weeks.

Due to the rapid development following this event, there hasn't been time for a proper write-up of the abundance of claims, counter-claims, reactions and over-reactions and the ongoing investigation is mainly taking place on the discussion page.

Death Toll
Initial reports mentioned dozens of dead, perhaps more than 100. "Hundreds" quickly took over. The Local Coordinating Committees arrived a tally of "more than 650" as AFP reports. CNN cited an activist claiming to have been at a single clinic in Irbin (Arbeen) where there were 300 dead and 500 wounded. Before the day was out, it would be "more than 1,000" fatalities being widely reported. George Sabra, Deputy Head of the Syrian National Coalition, would claim in Istanbul that 1,300 people had died. It might be relevant that 1300 is exactly twice the previous high report, 650.

The Damascus Media Office issued a statement citing data from medical centres talking about 494 dead killed in "a gas attack and shelling". They broke this down to 150 victims in Hammouriya, 100 in Kfar Batna, 67 in Saqba, 61 in Douma, 76 in Mouadamiya and 40 bodies from Irbin. The SOHR offered a more conservative tally by the end of the 21st: "We have been able to document so far the death of 136 people as a result of the regime bombardment on parts of Mou'adamiyat al-Sham city, western Ghouta, and the towns and cities of the eastern Ghouta. The dead include dozens of women and children." That doesn't even specify what role the chemicals had in this (minimum, documented) grand total. One comment contests this: "1200 were killed not 200." An update on August 24 said "We have so far documented the death of 322 people killed as a result of the regime assault on the eastern and western Ghouta," with "most of the martyrs," or "hundreds," killed by gas poisoning.

On the 22nd, U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki put forth the highest tally yet in a press briefing: "The most recent estimates we have seen range from 1,000 to 1,800, which is obviously a broad range." Just as notable is the narrowness of the range - all options under 1,000 are ruled out, and this is purportedly chemical dead, not that plus bombing/other dead.

Government Reaction
Initial statements by the Syrian Information Minister and the Foreign Ministry in a statement to the UN dismiss the reports as "false and untrue" and suggest that they are results of desperation in face of a military offensive. Al Zoubi:
 * "The cries of terrorists and their calls for aid accompany the fact that the Armed Forces are advancing on the ground, and also accompany the fabricated campaign waged by some channels in desperate bid to imbue false morale in the armed terrorist groups," he said, asserting that the support by some Arabs and the so-called Arab League for these allegations is ridiculous, naïve, illogical and non-objective.

"Inspectors" Reaction
(forthcoming)

World Reaction
Syria (see above)

France

 * Reuters: France says force needed if Syrian chemical attack proved true
 * ...if allegations that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical attack on civilians proved true ..."There would have to be reaction with force in Syria from the international community, but there is no question of sending troops on the ground," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told French television network BFM. If the U.N. Security Council could not make a decision, one would have to be taken "in other ways," he said, without elaborating.''

NATO bombing is the most logical fit for that eventuality. And, as proof of guilt, he would accept a lack of Syrian approval to investigate this, probably first and maybe exclusively:
 * Fabius said that if Assad refused to let the U.N. inspection team investigate the site, he would have been caught with "his hand in the till."

Russia
Foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich issued a statement claiming that


 * Early morning of August 21, a homemade rocket carrying an unknown chemical warfare agent was launched on the eastern suburbs of Damascus. The missile resembled the rocket which was used by the rebels on March 19 in Khan al-Asal

He called for a thorough investigation and deemed it suspicious that "the biased regional media" immediately blamed the event on Assad, pointing out that this looked like a "pre-planned provocation" timed with the arrival of the UN Investigators.

United States
Sharmine Narwani ‏paraphrases:
 * US State Dept press briefing: No clue if CWs were used in #Syria, let alone who used them: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2013/08/213398.htm 
 * In this, Psaki puts forth a death toll range of 1,000 to 1,800, and says "We crossed a redline" months ago, "It did change the calculus, and we took action, and we have the opportunity, or the option, to do more if he [Obama] chooses to do more."


 * NYT Aug 23: Obama Officials Weigh Response to Syria Assault:
 * Senior officials from the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence agencies met for three and a half hours at the White House on Thursday to deliberate over options, which officials say could range from a cruise missile strike to a more sustained air campaign against Syria.The meeting broke up without any decision, according to senior officials, amid signs of a deepening division between those who advocate sending Mr. Assad a harsh message and those who argue that military action now would be reckless and ill timed.
 * How could bombing Syria for a possibly fictitious chemical attack rebels say killed over 1,000, 2-3 days after UN CW investigators arrived, be considered "ill timed?" --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

China

 * China says U.N. chemical inspectors should be objective in Syria:
 * "China's position is very clear. It does not matter what side in Syria uses chemical weapons, China resolutely opposes it," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement send to Reuters in China's first public response to the attack. "At present, the U.N's chemical weapons inspection team for Syria is on the ground beginning its investigations, and (China) hopes that the team fully consults with the Syrian government and maintains an objective, impartial and professional stance, to ascertain what really happened."

United Kingdom
Reuters, quoting British foreign secretary, William Hague: "I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. ... I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime." (emphasis added-is that really his stated reason to skip the most logical range of explanations?)