Why Did Assad Do It? Ctd

Alastair Smith, co-author of The Dictator’s Handbook, has a theory:

First of all, using chemical weapons has absolutely cemented that for Assad there can be no soft landing. That has two effects: Domestically, it has signaled to his coalition that they should stick with him. He’s there for the long run and there’s no easy way out for him, so they know he won’t desert them. These crimes against humanity have also made it very clear that it’s going to be very bad for the Alawites if there’s any political transition, which makes them even more loyal to him. They have nowhere else to go.

It’s also been a brilliant play internationally. The extent of the chemical weapons has not been so much that Obama’s willing to put ground forces in. The airstrikes they are discussing are unlikely to be a decisive military factor. And Russia and Iran would love to snub the nose of the U.S. and this is a perfect way to do it. The U.S. is going to have to go it alone if they do it, and this is a great way for Russia and Iran to make the U.S. look impotent and pathetic. Russia’s going to continue supplying [Assad] with weapons and Iran’s going to keep supplying him with money. So this was actually a brilliant play from him.

And a terrible, awful, no-good play for Obama. This does explain better the big hike in the stakes Assad just gambled on. And it does not appear to be an accident. This piece in the NYT is pretty definitive proof that the greater reach and power of the weapons delivered to ghouta was absolutely deliberate, and integral to the very design of the rockets used. A reader relays another theory:

I was going to send this email yesterday but figured somebody must have heard this; it must be common knowledge: I heard an NPR interview with retired general Jack Keane, who said that the rebels had acquired anti-aircraft weapons and shot down two of Assad’s aircraft recently.  Assad tried to destroy the rebels using conventional means and was unable to, so he resorted to gas.  I have not heard this anywhere else. The Keane interview sounds plausible, but it makes me wonder how a retired general has info no one else has.

We’ll keep tabs on this question of motive. Earlier debate on the question here.