# US bombing in Syria - how is it justified? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 11, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246 "2014-09-11T23:16:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/81 "2014-09-24T02:34:10Z")
> [@XT](#): > > From what I recall, Iran (as well as most other neighboring states, including Turkey who probably has as much a stake in this as anyone, considering the large numbers of Syrian refugees who have fled to there) were asked if they wished to participate and essentially turned us down, as did a number of European states. So, it’s not like we deliberately cut them out. I think this is more a demonstration of those countries willing to do something, and those who aren’t more than some sort of subtle threat against Iran. Of course, they probably don’t see it that way either. Well, that’s Iran’s version, have you heard that from another source? Even if there were \*some \*truth to it, the US wasn’t about to ask permission or coordinate airstrikes with Syria, and Iran wasn’t going to join our efforts if we didn’t do that. I imagine that impasse was pretty predictable, so _if_ the US did ask Iran if they wanted to participate, it would have been contingent on cutting out Syria, which they would have known to be a non-starter. Besides, I’m not so sure the Sunni Arab members of the alliance would have been too keen with Iran being involved, even if we somehow were. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/82 "2014-09-24T03:01:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Poke a stick into the hornets’ nest. What could possibly go wrong? I hear ya. On the other hand- do nothing, what could possibly go wrong? Do we let these guys conquer Iraq? Where else will they spread? I’m confident our military can contain these guys. I just wish Congress would raise the revenue to pay for it- otherwise this just looks like the next war on Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, education and the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/83 "2014-09-24T03:18:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So - how in the world can US justify going in and bombing in Syria _without_ coordinating with Assad? Looks like we did coordinate with Assad. BBC TV says Assad has been told not to challenge the planes. End of coordination. Personally, I’m happy to see ISIS bombed anywhere in the world even if they’re in Canada or England. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/84 "2014-09-24T14:24:14Z")
In case there are still skeptics that doubt the collective self-defense part of the UN Charter, here is a quote from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon: > [@](#): > > I am aware that today’s strikes were not carried out at the direct request of the Syrian Government, but I note that the Government was informed beforehand. I also note that the strikes took place in areas no longer under the effective control of that Government. **I think it is undeniable – and the subject of broad international consensus – that these extremist groups pose an immediate threat to international peace and security**. [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chief-welcomes-airstrikes-syria-25703044](http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chief-welcomes-airstrikes-syria-25703044) If the UN Secretary General endorses the idea that ISIL is an immediate threat to security, I take that as a pretty convincing chunk of evidence that Iraq, the US, and others are legitimately acting in self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/85 "2014-09-24T16:21:55Z")
I’m glad the Internet did not exist in the 1930s and 1940s. Posters would be asking to justify attacking Nazis, when really, fuck Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/86 "2014-09-24T16:34:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > In case there are still skeptics that doubt the collective self-defense part of the UN Charter, here is a quote from the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon: > [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chief-welcomes-airstrikes-syria-25703044](http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/chief-welcomes-airstrikes-syria-25703044) > > If the UN Secretary General endorses the idea that ISIL is an immediate threat to security, I take that as a pretty convincing chunk of evidence that Iraq, the US, and others are legitimately acting in self-defense. Being a threat to “international peace” is pretty vague, and even Obama says that ISIL is not a direct threat to the US. Those are two different things. > [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I’m glad the Internet did not exist in the 1930s and 1940s. Posters would be asking to justify attacking Nazis, when really, fuck Nazis. Germany declared war on the US, so I don’t see that as an issue. When one nation declares war on another, you don’t need any other justification to attack. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/87 "2014-09-24T16:37:32Z")
[QUOTE=voltaire] Well, that’s Iran’s version, have you heard that from another source? [/QUOTE] I think you mean it’s the US’s version, and I haven’t really looked at another source. AFAIK, Iran isn’t denying it was asked if it wanted to participate, nor are the other countries. Be kind of silly for the US to lie about that, and pointless too, since it would be easier for us just not to even bother asking. > [@](#): > > Even if there were some truth to it, the US wasn’t about to ask permission or coordinate airstrikes with Syria, and Iran wasn’t going to join our efforts if we didn’t do that. I think it was totally true, until I see something indicating that any country asked disagrees. As for permission, it wasn’t about permission…we stated we were going to do this, and asked if other countries wanted to participate. Permission never came into it, so not sure where you are going with that. > [@](#): > > Besides, I’m not so sure the Sunni Arab members of the alliance would have been too keen with Iran being involved, even if we somehow were. Well, during the first Iraqi war there were nations predominantly Sunni and Shia involved, so it’s not that much of a stretch. Granted, Iran wasn’t involved, but that has more to do with their relationship with the US and with their other neighbors than sectarian religion, per se…and vice versa. I don’t know how the coalition Obama et al are putting together would have reacted if Iran had chosen to join, to be honest, but there were several countries that weren’t exactly bosom buddies that joined the US in the first gulf war, so it’s plausible that it could have happened. Iran chose not to, probably for it’s own good reasons, but this isn’t a subtle or not so subtle demonstration to Iran, and has really nothing to do with them…at least from OUR perspective. They mileage probably does vary, and they see everything in terms of a threat to themselves (and that everything that happens in the region revolves around them), so… ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/88 "2014-09-24T16:47:58Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Being a threat to “international peace” is pretty vague, and even Obama says that ISIL is not a direct threat to the US. Those are two different things. Uh, so what? Again, I’m responding to the question of what is the international legal justification for the U.S. attacking ISIL, not whether its a good thing or not. Based on Ban’s statement, it seems fairly clear that the UN Secretary General agrees that the U.S. attacking ISIL, whether in Iraq or Syria, is a legitimate use of force against a terrorist group that has attacked Iraq. And you’ll note my previous posts argued that the UN Charter allows the U.S. and other countries to come to Iraq’s aid in its own self-defense efforts. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/89 "2014-09-24T19:40:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Uh, so what? Again, I’m responding to the question of what is the international legal justification for the U.S. attacking ISIL, not whether its a good thing or not. > > Based on Ban’s statement, it seems fairly clear that the UN Secretary General agrees that the U.S. attacking ISIL, whether in Iraq or Syria, is a legitimate use of force against a terrorist group that has attacked Iraq. And you’ll note my previous posts argued that the UN Charter allows the U.S. and other countries to come to Iraq’s aid in its own self-defense efforts. I don’t think anyone is arguing that the US can’t aid Iraq in attacking ISIL inside Iraq’s border. They invited us in. And the US pretty much does whatever it wants around the world with or without the UNSC, so Ban’s approval or objection isn’t going to affect what Obama does. Ban’s opinion on the matter is certainly important, but it’s hardly authoritative. It is the UNSC that matters and we’ll never know precisely what that body would do except that it’s almost a certainty Russia would vote Nyet. It’s really an intellectual exercise to argue whether the US has the legal authority to bomb Syria because there is no legal recourse that anyone has when we do. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/90 "2014-09-24T20:00:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ban’s opinion on the matter is certainly important, but it’s hardly authoritative. It may not be conclusive, but let’s not pretend that he sells newspapers in the lobby of the building, either. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2014, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/91 "2014-09-24T20:08:19Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It may not be conclusive, but let’s not pretend that he sells newspapers in the lobby of the building, either. “Not conclusive” is a better phrase. But he did sell me a copy of the _Daily Racing Form_ last time I was in NYC. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/92 "2014-09-25T03:59:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Germany declared war on the US, so I don’t see that as an issue. When one nation declares war on another, you don’t need any other justification to attack. ISIS has effectively declared war on the US, see [New ISIS Recording Urges Muslims to Kill Civilians in US-Led Coalition Countries](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-recording-urges-muslims-kill-civilians-us-led/story?id=25669372). They want to be able to claim to speak for all Muslims and turn this whole affair into a religious war, but still, would you just ignore this kind of thing? It isn’t their only release that could be construed as a declaration of war. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/93 "2014-09-25T04:12:16Z")
It is a violation of international law to bomb a sovereign country, somewhat more so without a declaration of war against the appropriate party. I suspect that Assad, of the Syria Assads, won’t much mind ISIS being bombed, despite it looking like he is weak, ISIS is one of his many enemies. Bombing ISIS is not like invading Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. ISIS is in fact killing our citizens and attacking our allies. From a practical point of view, it not going to get everybody in the region hating us more. Syria, Turkey, Iran and Iraq all hate them some ISIS. As for boots on the ground, I say buy some cheap surplus boots and drop them out of a bomber from 40,000 feet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/94 "2014-09-25T04:26:20Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > ISIS has effectively declared war on the US, see [New ISIS Recording Urges Muslims to Kill Civilians in US-Led Coalition Countries](http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/isis-recording-urges-muslims-kill-civilians-us-led/story?id=25669372). > > They want to be able to claim to speak for all Muslims and turn this whole affair into a religious war, but still, would you just ignore this kind of thing? It isn’t their only release that could be construed as a declaration of war. ISIS is not a sovereign state and has no capability to wage war against the US. Syria is the internationally recognized government with sovereignty over the land called “Syria”. If we want to bomb Syria, we are doing so against international law. Why do you think no other Wester Democracy is joining us in this effort? Obama has even stated that ISIS is not an imminent threat to the US. It was the Bush Doctrine that said we didn’t need to be under imminent threat in order to wage war. I’m surprised to see so many people here support that doctrine just because it’s Obama doing it. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/95 "2014-09-25T05:25:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why do you think no other Wester Democracy is joining us in this effort? BBC TV is reporting that Britain is poised to join in very soon. And that France is mulling it over. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/96 "2014-09-25T07:03:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > ISIS is not a sovereign state and has no capability to wage war against the US. Syria is the internationally recognized government with sovereignty over the land called “Syria”. If we want to bomb Syria, we are doing so against international law. Why do you think no other Wester Democracy is joining us in this effort? Obama has even stated that ISIS is not an imminent threat to the US. It was the Bush Doctrine that said we didn’t need to be under imminent threat in order to wage war. I’m surprised to see so many people here support that doctrine just because it’s Obama doing it. The Bush Doctrine can mean any number of things. From pulling out of treaties unilaterally, to preemptive war against non-immediate threats, to fighting in countries that harbor terrorists, to deposing foreign regimes we don’t like to spreading democracy around the world. It was a universal phrase to add weight to internationally lawless behavior believed by the people in power to be advantageous to what they called the national interest at the time. > **[Bush Doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine)** > > The Bush Doctrine refers to multiple interrelated foreign policy principles of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. These principles include unilateralism, preemptive war, and regime change. > Charles Krauthammer first used the phrase in June 2001, to describe the Bush administration's "unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol." After the 9/11 attack, the phrase described the policy that the United States had the right to secure itself again... The Obama Doctrine seems to be a subset of the Bush Doctrine that is more narrowly focused on bombing the shit out of a particular terrorist group that is killing American citizens for kicks, including on Syrian soil. This isn’t as much of a stretch of international law as the various Bush Doctrines were. America has been pounding the shit out of terrorists and pirates on foreign soil since the “shores of Tripoli”. This seems to be narrowly focused to killing people who are generally agreed to be bad guys. Unlike the two major blocks of American people who thought that Saddam Hussein fell on one side or the other of being Al Queda and having weapons of mass destruction, there only appear to be a few Americans who don’t think ISIS is an enemy. If Syria is doing more than token complaining, they are a member state of the UN and can complain vigorously there. So while there are superficial similarities between how Bush handled Al Queda by attacking Al Queda’s sworn enemy, Iraq, and that ISIS is a sworn enemy of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq (and probably Jordan), these are not comparable situations. Besides which bombing and advisers are not the same as a full scale invasion of the wrong country. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/97 "2014-09-25T08:45:01Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > BBC TV is reporting that Britain is poised to join in very soon. And that France is mulling it over. Actually, I see now they’re talking about air strikes in Iraq and not Syria. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/98 "2014-09-25T08:47:21Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > Well, that’s Iran’s version, have you heard that from another source? Even if there were \*some \*truth to it, the US wasn’t about to ask permission or coordinate airstrikes with Syria, and Iran wasn’t going to join our efforts if we didn’t do that. I imagine that impasse was pretty predictable, so _if_ the US did ask Iran if they wanted to participate, it would have been contingent on cutting out Syria, which they would have known to be a non-starter. It’s damn near impossible to tell what is really going on between the Iranians and the Americans. Are they secretly coordinating, as some sources claim? Or are they plotting against one another even now, using the ISIS crisis for their own ends? Most likely, it’s a little bit of both. On the one hand, the Americans made sure _not_ to invite the Iranians to that pre-strike buddy-buddy bonding conference in Paris. So there’s a nice hard slap right in the face, to get things started. But ah, on the other hand, Kerry has said Iran has “a role to play” in fighting ISIS; Khameini has claimed that “the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs requested Iran’s help in a recent meeting with Iran’s deputy foreign minister”; [and](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/09/president_obama_s_real_allies_against_isis_america_s_coalition_against_the.html)… > [@](#): > > … The Associated Press says the two countries have engaged in “back-room contacts about cooperation for weeks.” Reuters adds that “in private, Iranian officials have voiced a willingness to work with Washington,” at least in a nonmilitary capacity. “Washington’s preferred dynamic,” according to Reuters’ sources, “is for Tehran to work separately toward the goal of defeating Islamic State while the two countries seek to ‘deconflict’ their activities.” In Iraq, for instance, the United States has tacitly accepted Iran’s arms shipments to Baghdad. A local source - mentioned [here](http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/relations-defeating-militants.html) - says that “State Department spokesman Jeff Rathke admitted on Friday that Washington discussed the Iraq situation with Iranian representatives on the margins of the conference about Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The two sides talked about the threat ISIL poses.” I think what we’re seeing, and will see even more of, is two separate anti-ISIS coalitions, one led by the U.S. and another led by Iran. The U.S. one includes, primarily, states - such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc., etc. The Iranian one includes, primarily, non-state actors such as Iraq’s Shi’ite militias. At least two of these - the Asaeb Ahlul-Haq and the Kata’ib Hizballah, both of which consider Khameini their numero uno _marjah_ - have already started sending fighters into Syria, “[to combat Sunni jihadists there alongside the Lebanese Hizballah and Assad’s forces](http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-islamic-state-iran-coalition/26590629.html).” From [here](http://www.rferl.org/content/iraq-islamic-state-iran-coalition/26590629.html): > [@](#): > > The Shi’ite militias are so much part of the fight against Islamic State that the question for the international coalition now will be how to react not if, but when, the two sides [the U.S.-led coalition and the Iran-led coalition] find themselves on the same battlefield. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/99 "2014-09-25T11:35:21Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > It is a violation of international law to bomb a sovereign country, somewhat more so without a declaration of war against the appropriate party. These two statements are simply made out of whole cloth. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and I question whether you’ve read the thread at all. I’ve cited the relevant international law on this situation. ---
**Author:** ![crucible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@crucible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crucible)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2014, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246/100 "2014-09-25T11:43:28Z")
IMHO, If ISIS were a typical, half-way secular or nationalist or even, a moderate form of Islam, no one would think of it as worth bombing or corralling. The beheadings and reports of religious based atrocities, extreme treatment of all prisoners, etc. etc. are what turned the ‘world’ against ISIS. What seems counterintuitive is the attraction these atrocious acts seems to have for second or third generation Arabs/Muslims in other countries, trying to return to the area to join…ISIS says, themselves, that the beheading videos are ‘recruiting’ propaganda… I don’t really understand why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-bombing-in-syria-how-is-it-justified/698246.md?page=6)