Syrian Gas Attack: I'm Losing My Mind

[Octavious]

Again, why do you think Assad must be stupid to use chemical weapons? The benefits are obvious. City fighting using conventional methods is notoriously difficult, slow, and costly. City fighting using chemical weapons is far swifter without the risk of demoralizing and costly heavily losses. If you don't care about the humanitarian aspect it's extremely tempting. It's also a great deterrent to future rebellions.

The only downside from Assad's point of view is Western reaction. He has Russia at his back so he's confident there will be no major attack. He will be imprisoned for life if he ever steps foot in the West already, so he doesn't give a damn about any personal sanctions. Trump was making noises about leaving Syria to its fate only days before, so he calculates there's a damned good chance he will get away with it, and if so he will be free to use the weapons for the remainder of the war.

As it turns out the West makes a token gesture. Enough to persuade Assad not to try it again, if we're lucky, but nothing to cause him any great inconvenience.

Assad to a calculated risk for a potentially significant reward. He didn't win, but he didn't lose much either. So explain to me why, assuming this is what happened, it makes him an idiot?

[Fluminator]

If he's publicly claiming he didn't do them, it kind of ruins the point of instilling fear into the rebels doesn't it?

The point that it's easier to deal with the rebels has merit, but the rebels had already lost and were retreating so again, seems a little odd he uses it at that point. I'd see a lot more motive for him if the war had no end in sight.

[leon1122]

Exactly. Octavious says that conventional fighting is slow and costly, but this war has already dragged on for I think 7 years, so what's a few more extra months?

[President Eden]

Again, why do you think Assad must be stupid to use chemical weapons? The benefits are obvious. City fighting using conventional methods is notoriously difficult, slow, and costly. City fighting using chemical weapons is far swifter without the risk of demoralizing and costly heavily losses. If you don't care about the humanitarian aspect it's extremely tempting. It's also a great deterrent to future rebellions.

The only downside from Assad's point of view is Western reaction. He has Russia at his back so he's confident there will be no major attack. He will be imprisoned for life if he ever steps foot in the West already, so he doesn't give a damn about any personal sanctions. Trump was making noises about leaving Syria to its fate only days before, so he calculates there's a damned good chance he will get away with it, and if so he will be free to use the weapons for the remainder of the war.

As it turns out the West makes a token gesture. Enough to persuade Assad not to try it again, if we're lucky, but nothing to cause him any great inconvenience.

Assad to a calculated risk for a potentially significant reward. He didn't win, but he didn't lose much either. So explain to me why, assuming this is what happened, it makes him an idiot?

Both attacks have followed the same pattern:

+ Assad is on the verge of achieving complete victory in Syria
+ Suddenly a mysterious chemical attack happens and gets blamed on Assad
+ The West launches surgical strikes on Syria which don't do anything too damaging to Syria but set them back
+ The rebels who were on the verge of being crushed are given breathing room to survive and fight another day

He didn't need to use them and the Western response crippling his assets is extremely predictable. You could possibly argue that it wasn't predictable in 2017, if Assad believed Trump would fold like Obama did on the "red line," but that was clearly proven wrong. Doing it again in the same circumstances against his incentives is unbelievably suspect. I'd call it sloppy work by the perpetrators, but it's clearly working just fine, since the general public in the West is none the wiser.

[Octavious]

+ Assad is on the verge of achieving complete victory in Syria
This is news to me. He is winning, but complete victory seems rather distant. We have reached the stage where rebel groups are beginning to accept that they can't win, and will sue for peace. Their negotiation position will be vastly different if "no deal" means months or years of terrible door to door fighting, to what it would be if Assad could use chemical weapons to flush them out.

+ Suddenly a mysterious chemical attack happens and gets blamed on Assad
At a time when western resolve in the region appears to reach a new low Assad launches a chemical weapons strike.

+ The West launches surgical strikes on Syria which don't do anything too damaging to Syria but set them back
Yes. The degree to how much they were set back is a matter of debate.

+ The rebels who were on the verge of being crushed are given breathing room to survive and fight another day
I refer you to my first answer.