22
THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR
T
HE SELF-IMMOLATION OF
a Tunisian street vendor in late 2010 sparked turmoil across the Middle East. A series of turbulent uprisings have since swept the region, deposing leaders in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen. Protests in Syria, beginning in the spring of 2011, gradually escalated into a protracted and militarised civil war pitting President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against armed rebels.
The security situation deteriorated throughout 2012 and 2013, creating a humanitarian emergency and a spiralling refugee crisis. By September 2013, the United Nations estimated that two million Syrians had been forced to leave their country. A further four and a quarter million had been displaced within Syria.
1
Meanwhile, evidence of chemical weapons attacks – a self-proclaimed ‘red line’ for President Obama – piled up on government desks. On the morning of 21 August 2013, a particularly heavy chemical attack indiscriminately killed hundreds of civilians in east Damascus. David Cameron, Britain’s Prime Minister, sought military intervention.
With developments moving at a fast pace in the last week of August, intelligence became central. In deliberating military intervention, governments needed to know whether Assad’s forces had in fact used chemical weapons, who actually ordered this use, and why. With Parliament recalled ahead of a vote on the principle of military intervention, Cameron’s government made a striking decision. Echoing Tony Blair eleven years earlier, the Prime Minister decided to publish Joint Intelligence Committee material. Accordingly, the Cabinet Office released the JIC’s conclusions on the reported use of chemical weapons in Damascus alongside a covering letter from the committee’s Chairman, Jon Day. These are both reproduced below.
Intelligence and Iraq had proved highly controversial, thrusting the JIC into the media spotlight. Why then did Cameron seek to follow suit? In truth there was no escaping the legacy of Iraq and the WMD saga. Despite the differing contexts, its echo reverberated around the parliamentary debate about intervention in Syria. Indeed, David Cameron acknowledged that ‘I am deeply
mindful of the lessons of previous conflicts and, in particular, of the deep concerns in the country that were caused by what went wrong with the Iraq conflict in 2003’.
2
Similarly, Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition, stressed the need to ‘learn the lessons of Iraq’.
3
This extended to issues of intelligence and proof of Syrian chemical weapons use.
David Cameron faced a similar dilemma to Tony Blair. Back in 2002, Blair was confronted by a maelstrom of media and parliamentary questions about the justification for military intervention. As discussed in
Chapter 19
, he opted to publish a dossier based on sanitised intelligence. Eleven years later, Cameron felt similarly obliged to publish declassified intelligence as the debate gathered pace and Britain, alongside the United States, appeared to be heading towards another unpopular military intervention.
4
Given the legacy of Iraq, Cameron’s government may have felt even greater pressure to release the intelligence assessment. Indeed, the Prime Minister was all too aware that ‘we must recognise the scepticism and concerns that many people in the country will have after Iraq’.
5
Although seeking intervention, Cameron expressed caution. Fully aware that weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq, political leaders in both Whitehall and Washington had to be careful not to prematurely accuse Assad of using chemical weapons. Evidence had to be found. And more importantly, a wary public had to be convinced that the evidence had been found. The various investigations, from Butler to Chilcot, into flawed intelligence and politicisation surely soured public perceptions of both the value of intelligence and how policymakers used it.
As a result of these various factors, JIC material again became central. On 27 August 2013, the committee concluded it was ‘highly likely’ that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack, which, according to the JIC, resulted in at least 350 fatalities. The reasons underpinning this assessment are clearly visible in the document below and need not be repeated here.
Despite demonstrating some similarities with intelligence regarding Iraq, the Syria assessment reveals four key differences. The government had learnt from earlier mistakes. Firstly, and most obviously, the Syria assessment was not a government dossier. It clearly maintained JIC ownership, whilst Day’s letter emphasised that conclusions ‘were agreed by all committee members’. These two factors allowed little room for accusations of political spin and ‘sexing up’ reminiscent of those that hounded Blair and Alastair Campbell in the aftermath of the Iraq dossier.
Secondly, the Syria assessment was introduced by a letter from the JIC chairman. This lies in stark contrast with Tony Blair’s foreword which headed the Iraq dossier. As noted in
Chapter 19
, the foreword was highly criticised for stretching the available intelligence to its limits and Blair has since expressed regret at having written it all. With hindsight the former Prime Minister wished he had simply published the sanitised material. Learning from Blair, this is exactly what Cameron did. By publishing the JIC’s conclusions, introduced by
Day, Cameron once again reduced the potential for criticisms of spin, politicisation and manipulation.
Thirdly, the prominent references to open-source intelligence in the Chairman’s letter are noteworthy. Day attempted to emphasise how intelligence was not, for the most part, based on secret sources unavailable to the public. For example, he highlighted the ‘considerable’ degree of ‘open source reporting’ alongside the committee’s consultations with experts outside government to assess whether the footage of the attack could have been faked. In doing so, the letter reveals an apparent attempt to ensure credibility, build consensus beyond the Whitehall ‘securocrat’ bubble, and move away from a ‘trust us’ attitude which might have proved unsuccessful given the mistakes over Iraq. Indeed, Cameron drew heavily upon this in the debate, telling the House of Commons that ‘there is an enormous amount of open-source reporting, including videos that we can all see’.
6
These efforts reflect Lord Butler’s recommendations about mistakes in Iraq. He expressed concern about secret intelligence being given undue weight in JIC assessments and suggested ‘occasional external peer review’.
7
Alongside these attempts to emphasise open-source intelligence, however, Day’s letter to the Prime Minister also referred explicitly to ‘highly sensitive’ intelligence to which Cameron had access – this was probably a reference to signals intelligence material including intercepts of Syrian political and military traffic. A combination of open and secret sources is essential to the JIC’s all-source intelligence.
Fourthly, Day’s covering letter clearly states what the JIC did know and, crucially, what it did not. It acknowledges the limitations of intelligence and gives confidence ratings to the various conclusions. For example, Day conceded that the JIC had ‘high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time’. Again, this demonstrates progression from the time of Iraq when, according to Lord Butler, ‘it [was] not the current JIC convention to express degrees of confidence in the judgement’.
8
Accordingly, this contrasts heavily with Blair’s foreword and accompanying parliamentary performance, which reinforced the impression that firmer intelligence underpinned the dossier than was actually the case. Indeed, Cameron explicitly stated that ‘I do not want to raise, as perhaps happened in the Iraq debate, the status of individual or groups of pieces of intelligence into some sort of quasi-religious cult’.
9
How, then, did the JIC assessment impact upon policymaking? On one level, alongside published legal advice, it helped support the government’s case for war. The JIC paper directly informed National Security Council discussions, whilst Day personally briefed NSC members to provide ‘further background and a summary of the most recent reporting, analysis and challenge’. The JIC enjoyed direct access to policymaking at the highest level. Moreover, the day after the NSC meeting the Prime Minister explicitly quoted the committee’s key judgements in the parliamentary debate. He then argued that
all the evidence we have – the fact that the opposition do not have chemical weapons and the regime does, the fact that it has used them and was attacking the area at the time, and the intelligence that I have reported – is enough to conclude that the regime is responsible and should be held accountable.
10
On another level, the JIC report also influenced parliamentarians. This is unusual in so far as assessments traditionally only influenced senior policymakers but, owing to the Iraqi precedent, it will perhaps become more common. During the parliamentary debate one Conservative MP lamented:
On the intelligence, those of us who were here in 2003, at the time of the Iraq War, felt they had their fingers burnt. The case for war was made and Parliament was briefed on the intelligence, but we were given only part of the story and, in some cases, an inaccurate story. A summary of the intelligence has been published [on Syria], but it is the bare bones, and I urge the government in the following days to consider how more intelligence can be provided.
11
Even Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary in 2003, conceded that ‘Iraq has made the public much more questioning and more worried about whether we should put troops in harm’s way, especially when intelligence is involved’.
12
The JIC’s assessment of ‘highly likely’, reliant on a ‘limited but growing body of intelligence’, seemingly did not convince MPs. One Labour member argued that ‘“highly likely” and “some evidence” are not good enough to risk further lives, to risk counterattack, to inflame the whole region, to risk dragging other states into this war and, at the same time, to increase the risk of terrorism on British streets.’
13
In a humiliating blow to the Prime Minister’s authority, the House of Commons rejected Cameron’s plea for military intervention in principle.
The parliamentary debate reveals how publishing JIC intelligence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is useful for transparency and for explaining the factors driving important political decisions. On the other hand, however, intelligence rarely deals in certainties and publishing JIC material risks raising the required burden of proof beyond realistic levels. Despite this, the French government published an intelligence dossier the following week, whilst the Americans also spelt out the conclusions of their intelligence. It is too soon to say whether this is a new trend but a future role of intelligence, including that of the JIC, will perhaps be to inform public debate on key issues.
Joint Intelligence Organisation
| Cabinet Office |
Open +44 (0)20 7276 1234
|
70 Whitehall
London SW1A 2AS
From the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee
Ref: Jp 115
| Prime Minister |
29 August 2013
|
SYRIA: REPORTED CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE
Following the widespread open source reports of chemical weapons (CW) use in the suburbs of Damascus in the early hours of 21 August 2013, the JIC met on 25 August to agree an assessment. At a subsequent meeting on 27 August we met again to review our level of confidence in the assessment relating to the regime’s responsibility for the attack. The JIC’s conclusions were agreed by all Committee members. The final paper informed the National Security Council meeting on 28 August, at which I provided further background and a summary of the most recent reporting, analysis and challenge. The paper’s key judgements, based on the information and intelligence available to us as of 25 August, are attached.
It is important to put these JIC judgements in context. We have assessed previously that the Syrian regime used lethal CW on 14 occasions from 2012. This judgement was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review by the Joint Intelligence Organisation of intelligence reports plus diplomatic and open sources. We think that there have been other attacks although we do not have the same degree of confidence in the evidence. A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.
Unlike previous attacks, the degree of open source reporting of CW use on 21 August has been considerable. As a result, there is little serious dispute that chemical attacks causing mass casualties on a larger scale than hitherto (including, we judge, at least 350 fatalities) took place.
It is being claimed, including by the regime, that the attacks were either faked or undertaken by the Syrian Armed Opposition. We have tested this assertion using a wide range of intelligence and open sources, and invited HMG and outside experts to help us establish whether such a thing is possible. There is no credible intelligence or other evidence to substantiate the claims or the possession of CW by the opposition. The JIC has therefore concluded that there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.
We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all.
Against that background, the JIC concluded that it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the CW attacks on 21 August. The JIC had high confidence in all of its assessments except in relation to the regime’s precise motivation for carrying out an attack of this scale at this time – though intelligence may increase our confidence in the future.
There has been the closest possible cooperation with the Agencies in producing the JIC’s assessment. We have also worked in concert with the US intelligence community and agree with the conclusions they have reached.
Jon Day
JIC assessment of 27 August on Reported Chemical Weapons use in Damascus
A chemical attack occurred in Damascus on the morning of 21 August, resulting in at least 350 fatalities. It is not possible for the opposition to have carried out a CW attack on this scale. The regime has used CW on a smaller scale on at least 14 occasions in the past. There is some intelligence to suggest regime culpability in this attack. These factors make it highly likely that the Syrian regime was responsible. Extensive video footage attributed to the attack in eastern Damascus (which we assess would be very difficult to falsify) is consistent with the use of a nerve agent, such as sarin, and is not consistent with the use of blister or riot control agents. There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of CW on an apparently larger scale now, particularly given the current presence in Syria of the UN investigation team. Permission to authorise CW has probably been delegated by President Assad to senior regime commanders, such as [*], but any deliberate change in the scale and nature of use would require his authorisation.
There is no credible evidence that any opposition group has used CW. A number continue to seek a CW capability, but none currently has the capability to conduct a CW attack on this scale.
Russia claims to have a ‘good degree of confidence’ that the attack was an ‘opposition provocation’ but has announced that they support an investigation into the incident. We expect them to maintain this line. The Syrian regime has now announced that it will allow access to the sites by UN inspectors.
There is no immediate time limit over which environmental or physiological samples would have degraded beyond usefulness. However, the longer it takes inspectors to gain access to the affected sites, the more difficult it will be to establish the chain of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notes
|
1
. |
UNHCR, ‘Number of Syrian Refugees Tops Two Million Mark with More on the Way’, UNHCR News
, 3 September 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/522495669.html
(last accessed 5 September 2013). |
|
2
. |
|
|
3
. |
|
|
4
. |
|
|
5
. |
|
|
6
. |
|
|
7
. |
Lord Butler, Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
(London: The Stationery Office, 2004), p.146
|
|
8
. |
Butler, Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
, p. 145
|
|
9
. |
|
|
10
. |
|
|
11
. |
|
|
12
. |
|
|
13
. |
|