Again, thin ice. The US has unleashed WMDs against civilians.
To repeat, what the OP is looking for is not a political, or popular-back-at-home, justification for US strikes on Syrian territory. He’s looking for a legal justification. Preferably, one which doesn’t undermine the US’s interests or credibility in some other quarter of the globe.
It just is fairly amazing to me that we have gotten to the point where there isn’t even a pretense of, or an attempt to produce (like before) some kind of legal justification for our actions. Now it is purely “'cuz we wanna”.
Ok, I see what you’re saying.
ISIS threatens our national interests in Iraq via threatening our allies, the Kurds, and threatening the stability of Iraq itself, not to mention murdering our citizens in a barbarous, warlike manner. We can’t coordinate attacks with the Assad regime because it itself is equivalent to a terrorist organization. The popular will of the people of Ukraine to align more closely with Europe than Russia threatens Russia’s interests. Are these threats of the same kind?
A nation that unleashes chemical weapons on civilians could be considered a general threat (the US did it too, yes, against a belligerent in WWII that lost the war). Is it unlawful for a country in the position of the US to retaliate under these circumstances? Is there an analogous justification for hostilities by Russia in Ukraine?
And what about the Bush doctrine: “we will make no distinction between terrorists and the nations who harbor them”?
The problem with this line of argument is that the US has a long history of co-ordinating actions with regimes that are tantamount to terrorist organisations, and indeed with actual terrorist organisations, so that claim that they “can’t” do this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. They can, and they do. They just don’t want to on this occasion because they dislike the Assad regime, which I understand, but that’s a dubious foundation for a claimed legal right to attack Syria.
Plus, “threats to the national interests of the US in Iraq” are not acts of aggression against the US, and they don’t found a claim to legitimate self-defence.
Except that the US isn’t intervening to prevent or punish the use by the Syrian government of WMDs against civilians. They considered that some time ago, and elected not to do it. They are intervening, as you correctly point out, to protect and defend their own interests in Iraq, but that’s not an adequate basis to justify their actions as a matter of international law.
The strongest legal justification might rest on emerging principles of humanitarian law. ISIS is engaged in war crimes and crimes against humanity. They are operating out of Syria to do so. The Syrian government is unable or unwilling - it doesn’t matter which - to prevent this. In these circumstances, it cannot plead the sovereignty of Syria against other states which are willing to take actions to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In other words, what you’d be arguing for here is a limitation on state sovereignty. You’d argue that it’s not an act of aggression against a state to take action to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity mounted from within the territory of that state when the government of the state cannot or will not do that.
The reason why the US might be slow to advance this argument is that it implies a limitation of state sovereignty by subordinating it to principles of humanitarian law. I have already pointed out that they are not lily-white themselves in this regard; they have used WMDs against a civilian population. As Try2B Comprehensive, this was some time ago, and in the context of an ongoing war. But of course the declared policy of the US consistently has been, and still is, that they hold themselves free to do it again, and in fact they devote a considerable amount of money to maintaining the ever-ready capacity to do it. And they do other things to the citizens of other countries -like detaining them indefinitely without charge or trial - which, if done to their own citizens, would be treated by their own courts as a gross breach of human rights.
Not, of course, that any other state is about to attack the US to prevent such behaviour. But once it is conceded that state sovereignty cannot be used to shelter gross crimes against humanity, the US does weaken its own position, and expose itself to the possibility, if not of military action, then of diplomatic or other action. Hence their caution in advancing what is probably the strongest legal defence of their current actions in Syria.
If you’re trying to persuade people that you have a respectable foundation in international law for your actions, quoting George Bush is probably not a good start!
Legal stuff are just some magical words we say to ourselves in the delusion they mean anything. We are 100% in control of what we want to do with them. The USA is entirely able to pass a law that states bombing the shit out of Syria is legal. It can do that today.
Beyond that, people running around Syria just beheaded two US citizens. Either the Syrian government apprehend the suspects and extradite them immediately, or the government is not able to exercise sovereignty over the country in which case it is not the government and has no say in what goes on.
That’s true. And perhaps that’s the more honest and direct approach. Certainly one that won’t need liars to defend it.
Additionally, the world seems to be in approval of this action to go after ISIS. So little in the way of justification is being asked of the US.
The US.
Yup.
But that is not what is happening.
Um, no. People running around Iraq just did that.
To quote Black Bush: If the UN doesn’t like it then they should sanction me with their army. Oh, wait. They don’t have an army. Then they should shut the fuck up."
That’s how Syria got their “we’d just as soon go to war with you” status. We never quit viewing them as a rogue regime, even though we have refrained from bombing them until now.
And now they are harboring a terrorist headquarters that is invading foreign countries. We went to war with Iraq for invading Kuwait, and that was generally met with approval. Syria is now effectively invading Iraq, even if the Assad regime hates ISIS and vice versa. The Great Satan hates them all.
For those who are interested, here’s a possible analysis.
Summary: the US attacking ISIS is justified as fighing on behalf of Iraq, which is fighting in self-defence.
Ah, so it is “we’re going to war with you 'cuz you have chemical weapons. Ok, so you don’t have chemical weapons anymore. But you used to have them. That’s reason enough to go to war with you.”?
“Harboring”? They are fighting it, quite brutally, for years.
“Self-defense”? Great. Thank you for giving Israel justification to attack Hamas in Qatar as self-defense for Hamas’s attacks on Israel from Gaza.
I have no problem with that - it’s covered in the article.
How does that differ from the justifications (after the fact, admittedly) for invading Iraq?
I don’t think this is really going to be an issue, because ultimately these attacks will be “coordinated” with the Syrian government. That is, we’ll tell them we’re coming, and call that coordinating.
I don’t like it one bit.
Actually the Assad regime has been tacitly encouraging IS, targeting other rebel groups instead since IS is much less interested in fighting the government than in establishing their theocracy.
Well, it the OP asks a good question and it is a thought-provoking thread. I’ve had to out-grow my original comments.
Now I do think it comes down to protecting our allies and the notion that Iraq is being invaded from Syria.
Beyond that, Obama has had some success putting together a regional coalition which includes all the surrounding nations, with the possible exception of Turkey. The details of what they are actually going to contribute are a little blurry, but regional support ain’t nothing. I guess we aren’t bothering with the Security Council since presumably Russia will veto everything.
And then there is the President’s power as commander-in-chief. He gets 60 days to act as he sees fit, then ostensibly Congress is supposed to vote to authorize force. They are reluctant to do that though, mostly in the GOP there is a reluctance to do anything at all before the midterms, lest voters be reminded that they don’t approve of any of the plutocratic policies the GOP intends to foist on the public after the elections, should they take control of the Senate.
The big difference between this and W’s Iraq War is that the premises for action aren’t wholly make-believe.
Except Turkey and Iran and Lebanon. The details are more than “a little blurry”, they are mostly unknown.