Horrific scenes of dead and injured civilians in Syria have been a part of the conflict there over the past several years, but the reports of a chemical attack of some sort last week in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta have led U.S. policymakers and the Obama White House to threaten to attack in a matter of days.

There is still no firm public evidence that would tie these specific attacks to the Assad government. But all around the U.S. media the signs are clear that war is on the way. The front page of USA Today (8/27/13) displays U.S. bombs:

 While on ABC‘s This Week (8/25/13) viewers saw a computer simulation of an attack from a U.S. warship:

One tendency in the corporate media seemed to be to jump to the conclusion that the chemical attacks were launched by the Assad regime, while admitting that perhaps this was not yet proven. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (8/27/13) wrote that “Obama has to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s homicidal regime with a military strike”–before admitting:

If it is true that the regime killed hundreds of civilians with nerve gas in a Damascus suburb last week–and Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons is “undeniable”–then Obama has no choice. Such use cannot be tolerated, and any government or group that employs chemical weapons must be made to suffer real consequences.

Of course, providing convincing evidence that the attacks actually were the work of the Syrian government should be the first order of business.  But when news accounts, like one from  USA Today (8/27/13), open with this–”A limited strike against Syria might convince the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again”–it’s hard not reach the conclusion that some have already made up their minds.  On CBS‘s Face the Nation (8/25/13), Reutersjournalist David Rohde said: “There has to be a price for gassing hundreds of civilians. There has to be.”

So far, the U.S. government has mostly made emphatic assertions–often anonymously.  In the August 26 New York Times, readers learned that “a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was ‘very little doubt’ that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week.”

The report, by Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, added:

The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

The statement, released Sunday morning on the condition that the official not be named, reflected a tougher tone after President Obama’s meeting at the White House on Saturday with his national security team, during which advisers discussed options for military action.

It is curious that this “tougher tone” comes from officials whom the paper will not name. 

John Kerry (cc photo: Ralph Alswang)

Today’s edition of the Times (8/27/13) gives readers the headline “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria.” Earlier versions of the piece were less definitive (the headline read “Kerry Accuses Syria of Chemical Weapons Attack”), and it was difficult to see just what the clear evidence was–other than the acknowledgment that some sort of chemical attack had occurred, which is hardly in dispute.

The paper went on to report:

In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence–intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.

 If there is such evidence, one would assume it would be made public as soon as possible. Instead, unnamed officials are telling the New York Times that they’ll share it someday soon.

What would more skeptical coverage look like? Patrick Cockburn of theIndependent (8/21/13) wrote that it is vital to be skeptical, since “the Syrian opposition has every incentive to show the Syrian government deploying chemical weapons in order to trigger foreign intervention.” Cockburn adds that there are plenty of reasons for the Syrian government to not launch a chemical weapons attack, but

the obvious fact that for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons would be much against their own interests does not prove it did not happen. Governments and armies do stupid things.

 

On Syria, Intelligence and Evidence

By Peter Hart 11 Comments

One would hope that the lessons of Iraq might inform more of the coverage of Syria. But that’s not always the case. Over the course of the past week, the White House and various officials have been adamant that they have evidence that shows the Syrian government was responsible for the horrific attack last week that likely killed hundreds, and very well could have been a chemical or gas attack of some sort.

But too many journalists were treating what the government said it knew as if it was already actual evidence. On NBC Nightly News (8/27/13), Andrea Mitchell reported that “officials tell NBC News they have intelligence intercepts tying the attack to the regime, plus physical evidence.”

And on NPR‘s All Things Considered (8/27/13), Mara Liasson reported:

We now hear that U.S. intelligence officials are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.

What Liasson is “hearing” is so convincing that she apparently considers it “even more evidence” that Assad is responsible–though no evidence had been made public.

On NBC Nightly News (8/29/13), Chuck Todd explained:

The White House believes the case against Assad is clear-cut. And here’s why.NBC News has learned one of the key pieces of evidence that the U.S. has to prove Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attack is an intercepted communication that says Assad’s brother–a commander of the Syrian Republican guard–personally ordered the attack. That’s why, Lester, the president is so confident about where he stands on this.

 This is curious when compared to more critical takes, like a report from theNew York Times the same day (8/29/13):

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.

The Times went on to characterize the intelligence that would be made public as more like a “modest news release.” This proved to be an accurate description of the sketchy supporting document that accompanied Secretary of State John Kerry’s presentation on Friday.

An Associated Press story that day (8/29/13) reported:

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.

But so much of the coverage treats the case as basically closed. Here’s how ABCanchor Diane Sawyer opened her World News broadcast on August 27:

The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria. The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position. And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when. The goal, to stop a man using brutal chemical weapons 5,000 miles away.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the Syrian regime carried out these horrific attacks. But journalism should stick to the facts that are known, and refrain from treating government claims as if they are facts. 

Ten years ago, the intelligence shared by the Bush administration convinced many in the media that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was based on intercepted phone calls, satellite imagery and the like. It turned out to be completely wrong.

That doesn’t mean the government isn’t telling the truth this time around. But journalists would be better off starting from the premise that the Iraq lesson provides a cautionary tale.

U.S. warship firing one of 110 cruise missiles at Libyan forces (photo: DoD)

Time magazine’s Michael Crowley(9/9/13) offers an analysis of how the Syrian situation reflects on Barack Obama’s presidency:

Whatever comes of Obama’s confrontation with Assad, an even more dangerous confrontation lies in wait–the one with Iran. If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his vow to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests,” Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2012.

But to his critics, Obama does hesitate, and trouble follows as a result. With more than three years left in his presidency, he has the opportunity to reverse that impression. Success in Syria and then Iran could vindicate him, and failure could be crushing. “The risk is that, if things in the Middle East continue to spiral, that will become his legacy,” says Brian Katulis, a former Obama campaign adviser now with the Center for American Progress.

Obama does “hesitate to use force”–is that his problem? Since 2009, US drone strikes have killed more than 2000 people in Pakistan, including 240 civilians, 62 of them children. Since Obama took office, they’ve killed more than 400 in Yemen; drone deaths in Somalia are harder to quantify.

Obama roughly tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, from 33,000 to 98,000 (Think Progress, 6/22/11). In 2011, he sent naval and air forces into battle to overthrow the government of Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi. In Iraq, Obama tried and failed to keep tens of thousands of troops in the country beyond the withdrawal deadline negotiated by the Bush administration (New York Times, 10/22/11).

This is a record that would not seem to indicate a particular hesitancy to use force. Oddly, Crowley acknowledges much of this: “Obama …sent more troops to Afghanistan, escalated drone strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorists,” he writes. But his military actions are presented as a sign of his unwillingness to take military action: “In Libya, he at first stood by as rebels fighting Muammar Gaddafi’s forces found themselves outgunned and on the run.”

No matter how many wars you engage in–Obama has had six so far–there are always wars you could have started but didn’t. Crowley seems to be suggesting that those unfought wars ought to take the blame for any problems Obama leaves behind.