There are a lot of bad theories circulating about Syria these days, and some of them involve the 2003 American invasion of Iraq as an example of why American involvement in United Nations enforcement operations in Syria would be a disaster. This article is not meant to argue in-favor of anything akin to the 2003 American invasion of Iraq; that invasion and action was illegal, immoral, and wrong. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the differences between the situations and spell out why continuing to utilize this line of reasoning is a poor choice.
Colin Powell at the UN in 2003 with a vial of “anthrax”
The Iraq War was sold on a number of principles; namely, that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was connected(1) with Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda (and thus partially responsible for the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, a claim which the administration also at times rejected(2)), and that Saddam’s regime possessed a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), ranging from chemical and biological weapons to possibly nuclear weapons (“the smoking gun that comes in the form of a mushroom cloud”(3)). Later, Bush administration officials also began paying lip service to the cruelty of the Hussein regime, citing examples such as the 1988 Halabja massacre to propel their claims. However, Iraq’s previous use of chemical weapons (against both Iranian foes on the battlefield and Kurdish civilians in their cities) was never a primary factor behind the American-led intervention in 2003.
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
Saddam Hussein did not have connections to Al Qaeda, and had nothing to do with any aspect of the 9/11 attacks. On a similar note, nor does/did the regime of Bashar al-Assad (who was busy celebrating his own birthday on 9/11 and likely had his mood impacted by the news, either positively or negatively). There is, however, a considerable terrorist element present in Syria today (contrary to the small, ineffective, and utterly rejected men of Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, which later became Al Qaeda in Iraq after being emboldened by the American invasion). It could be argued that, by targeting more moderate opposition almost exclusively (whilst leaving Daesh mostly untouched for years(4)), Assad’s regime in effect provided a safe haven for Daesh and Nusra to grow. Going back further, it could also be argued that Assad’s exploitation of jihadist fighters during the American occupation of Iraq, in which the Syrian intelligence services helped facilitate the transfer of radicalized young men to Iraq to wage jihad against American forces, also constitutes support of terrorist organizations(5). In this way, Hussein and Assad’s regimes are quite different.
Leftover chemical weapon casings in Iraq in 2002
Saddam Hussein bought materials to produce chemical weapons from Germany, among others, materials which the Iraqi military fashioned into munitions used against Kurdish populations in the north and Iranian troop concentrations in the south. Thus, whether or not Saddam had used chemical weapons in the past was never up for debate in 2003. What was up for debate was whether or not Iraq still possessed those weapons in 2003. Had the United States attacked Iraq in 1988 in response to the Halabja massacre, considering the overall anti-Kurdish Al Anfal campaign has since been recognized widely as a genocide perpetrated by the Iraqi government against the Kurdish populations in the north, it would have been justified (legally) in doing so. However, the US attacked in 2003 for different reasons. Syria, on the other hand, has been found guilty in recent months of using both sarin and chlorine gas against enemy fighters and civilians alike, something which the UN has already explicitly warned against.
un security council resolution 2118 (S/RES/2118)
21. Decides, in the event of non-compliance with this resolution, including unauthorized transfer of chemical weapons, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in the Syrian Arab Republic, to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter;
A/HRC/34/64
98. An alarming number of allegations of the use of chlorine were reported during the siege of eastern Aleppo. In at least two incidents, chlorine bombs were airdropped by Syrian forces, resulting in civilian casualties, many of them children. The use of chlorine, regardless of the presence of a valid military objective, is prohibited by customary international humanitarian law as well as by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, to which the Syrian Arab Republic is a party. The continued use of chlorine by Syrian forces evinces a blatant disregard for international legal obligations, and also amounts to the war crime of indiscriminate attacks against a civilian population.
OPCW-UN JIM 7th Report
Based on the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.
Ultimately, the argument comparing Iraq to Syria is poorly-supported. Unlike Iraq in 2003, Syria in 2018 does possess large quantities of chemical munitions (6). Unlike Iraq in 2003, Syria in 2018 is using said weapons against opposition fighters and civilians alike (both constituting a war crime)(7). Unlike Iraq in 2003, Syria in 2018 has provided support to groups like Al Qaeda and Daesh, albeit often indirectly. Unlike Iraq in 2003, where the United Nations was announcing left and right that Iraq did not appear to possess chemical weapons, Syria in 2018 was recently declared to still be holding onto their stockpiles. And on and on. So while Iraq and Syria are both Arab countries in the Middle East, and while they are neighbors and do both have a history of Ba’athism, the comparisons between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and US participation in enforcement of UN resolutions in the present in Syria are a bit off base.
(1) Milbank, Dana. “Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship .” The Washington Post. June 18, 2004. Accessed March 05, 2018. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html.
Archived
(2) “Americas | Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link.” BBC News. September 18, 2003. Accessed March 05, 2018. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm.
Archived
(3) Blitzer, Wolf. “Search for the ‘smoking gun’.” CNN. January 10, 2003. Accessed March 05, 2018. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/.
Archived
(4) “Syria’s Assad, IS militants avoiding each other on battlefield: data.” Middle East Eye. February 13, 2015. Accessed March 05, 2018. http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syria-isis-ignoring-each-other-battlefield-data-suggests-143992759.
Archived
(5) Roggio, Bill. “The Syrian End of the Ratline.” FDD’s Long War Journal. June 09, 2005. Accessed March 05, 2018. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2005/06/the_syrian_end.php.
Archived
(6) “Statement by the Director-General Ahmet Üzümcü To the Executive Council at its 55th Meeting.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. June 5, 2017. Accessed March 5, 2018.
“When all the evidence and information from all available sources is put together, there is no disagreement that Sarin was used as a chemical weapon in Khan Shaykhun.”
(7) Deutsch, Anthony, and Giles Elgood. “Exclusive: Tests link Syrian government stockpile to largest sarin…” Reuters. January 30, 2018. Accessed March 05, 2018. https://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN1FJ0NS.
Archived
