This week I decided to explore the blogosphere in search of discussion on the current Syrian nuclear issue. I found two blogs which had posted on the issue surrounding the actual location of what Dr. Jeffery Lewis calls the “Box-on-the-Euphrates.” The first blog I chose was one written by the administrator of DPRK Studies, Richardson. I selected this blog because it is a good resource which is focused on North Korea and allowed easy access to debate on this subject from a different viewpoint. The second blog I posted on was Arms Control Wonk, which is written by Dr. Jeffery Lewis, a well respected author and researcher of security studies within international relations. I selected Dr. Lewis’ blog because it is a reputable source which addresses nuclear security studies. (Image to the left is a 2003 photo which may be compared to the images below taken in 2007.)
Comment:
Dear Richardson,
In general, I am not one to water statistics; however, in this case I believe that prudence dictates evaluation of the possibility that Syria may not be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. In your post you discussed that “Israel says the fast cleanup of the site shows Syria had something to hide.” Such a statement may well be correct and certainly, a “fast cleanup” regarding an issue of this level of sensitivity necessitates suspicion. In this case, it would seem that Syria is hiding something, but the most important question is whether Syria is attempting to conceal strength or weakness? A cornered animal is not safe, which is to say, taking away a state’s options is a dangerous policy if the ability to wage war has not been likewise removed. Although history may not be an accurate guide for current or future foreign policy prescriptions, in this case, it would be wise to take note of the fact that in the recent past, the world experienced a similar situation in Iraq.
Syria is currently in a tough position for any state. Iraq, after the Persian Gulf War, appeared to carry on a similar game of charades. While the presence WMDs within Iraq remains a contentious issue, there were reasons for the majority of Western intelligence groups to believe that Iraq did indeed have such programs because of the stance taken by Saddam Hussein. Saddam was stuck between a rock and a hard place. While appearing to seek and possess WMDs put Iraq at risk for a clash with the West, not having the deterrent value of these weapons may well have placed Iraq at greater risk vis-à-vis their neighbors. Both Syria and states which oppose a nuclear Syria must examine their perceptions of the intentions and capabilities of one another in earnest in order to circumvent the possibility for error surrounding guessing. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: “I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Syria would do well to select its reactions and statements carefully or risk a misunderstanding leading to a possible preemptive war. The intentions of Syria, which were already in doubt around the globe, have been further clouded by this recent event.
That Syria is hiding something appears obvious. However, there is the possibility that they are hiding a lack of nuclear capability. Their desire to deceive the world may be a response to a regional security dilemma, which Syria may perceive as a greater threat than intervention from the Western powers. Sometimes looking like a bully is enough to cause peers to fear you, even if no one has been witness to such evidence.
Thanks for your time.
Comment:
Dear Dr. Jeffery Lewis,
Though I understand the intention of your post, to clarify the geographical position of this site in relation to people, once this fact has been established, the discussion should turn to the more pressing issue of whether or not this site/location is viable as a nuclear facility. Although, a “remote” location for a nuclear facility may allow a government greater ease with which to monitor security and maintain secrecy, these are only some of the variables that are necessary to evaluate and prioritize selection for a nuclear reactor location. Absent a great deal of data regarding possible nuclear sites examined by Syria, it would be impossible to decide, what criteria made a site by the Euphrates the best choice.
I draw no conclusion whether or not this was a good choice for the site. Though many could point to the destruction of this “box” as proof in itself, it would be intellectually dishonest to make such a statement without first attempting to answer three critical questions. Is the “Box-on-the-Euphrates” the most remote location within Syria? Is it the most remote location which still has ready access to fresh water? Was this site the most remote location within Syria which still had access to the means of heavy transportation necessary to build a nuclear reactor secretly?
Obviously, the details and method used by Syria to select this site are not available. However, by evaluating the possible factors which could rule out other locations, the logic behind such a location may become more transparent.
Thanks for your time.
Dear Richardson,
In general, I am not one to water statistics; however, in this case I believe that prudence dictates evaluation of the possibility that Syria may not be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. In your post you discussed that “Israel says the fast cleanup of the site shows Syria had something to hide.” Such a statement may well be correct and certainly, a “fast cleanup” regarding an issue of this level of sensitivity necessitates suspicion. In this case, it would seem that Syria is hiding something, but the most important question is whether Syria is attempting to conceal strength or weakness? A cornered animal is not safe, which is to say, taking away a state’s options is a dangerous policy if the ability to wage war has not been likewise removed. Although history may not be an accurate guide for current or future foreign policy prescriptions, in this case, it would be wise to take note of the fact that in the recent past, the world experienced a similar situation in Iraq.
Syria is currently in a tough position for any state. Iraq, after the Persian Gulf War, appeared to carry on a similar game of charades. While the presence WMDs within Iraq remains a contentious issue, there were reasons for the majority of Western intelligence groups to believe that Iraq did indeed have such programs because of the stance taken by Saddam Hussein. Saddam was stuck between a rock and a hard place. While appearing to seek and possess WMDs put Iraq at risk for a clash with the West, not having the deterrent value of these weapons may well have placed Iraq at greater risk vis-à-vis their neighbors. Both Syria and states which oppose a nuclear Syria must examine their perceptions of the intentions and capabilities of one another in earnest in order to circumvent the possibility for error surrounding guessing. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote: “I never guess. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” Syria would do well to select its reactions and statements carefully or risk a misunderstanding leading to a possible preemptive war. The intentions of Syria, which were already in doubt around the globe, have been further clouded by this recent event.
That Syria is hiding something appears obvious. However, there is the possibility that they are hiding a lack of nuclear capability. Their desire to deceive the world may be a response to a regional security dilemma, which Syria may perceive as a greater threat than intervention from the Western powers. Sometimes looking like a bully is enough to cause peers to fear you, even if no one has been witness to such evidence.
Thanks for your time.
Comment:
Dear Dr. Jeffery Lewis,
Though I understand the intention of your post, to clarify the geographical position of this site in relation to people, once this fact has been established, the discussion should turn to the more pressing issue of whether or not this site/location is viable as a nuclear facility. Although, a “remote” location for a nuclear facility may allow a government greater ease with which to monitor security and maintain secrecy, these are only some of the variables that are necessary to evaluate and prioritize selection for a nuclear reactor location. Absent a great deal of data regarding possible nuclear sites examined by Syria, it would be impossible to decide, what criteria made a site by the Euphrates the best choice.
I draw no conclusion whether or not this was a good choice for the site. Though many could point to the destruction of this “box” as proof in itself, it would be intellectually dishonest to make such a statement without first attempting to answer three critical questions. Is the “Box-on-the-Euphrates” the most remote location within Syria? Is it the most remote location which still has ready access to fresh water? Was this site the most remote location within Syria which still had access to the means of heavy transportation necessary to build a nuclear reactor secretly?
Obviously, the details and method used by Syria to select this site are not available. However, by evaluating the possible factors which could rule out other locations, the logic behind such a location may become more transparent.
Thanks for your time.
