No Israel either.
I almost included Israel, but for some reason thought it wasn’t contiguous. But of course it borders Syria!
Also, Israel is part of the historic Levant so they probably have a strong opinion about what ISIL wants to establish as its territory.
So by “all”, T2BC means “less than half”.
The problem with that being that the current government of Iraq is essentially a de facto ally of Syria’s government, and very much NOT coincidentally, also an “ally” of Iran. Ok, so they’re not so much actual “allies” as they are both (increasingly) just Iran’s puppets.
ISTM that it’ll work more like: We coordinate with Iraq, and they pass it up and down the chain of command in Iran and Syria. Then we can pretend that “we” aren’t coordinating and cooperating with Syria and Iran at all, and they can maintain the same when they declare victory and take credit for defeating ISIL while keeping U.S. boots off their grounds.
Who needs nukes and a powerful military when you can just outsource that messy and expensive stuff to volunteers?
Not sure I understand. Why is that a problem with the analysis?
And the US govt’s covert and overt support of Syrian rebels caused Syria’s inability to govern its territory.
I was referring specifically to the prospect of justifying unilateral, uncoordinated US airstrikes in Syria on behalf of Iraq, when the two governments and Iran are pretty much besties.
What if Iraq requested that we don’t operate over Syria for them, or from their territory without clearing it with Syria first? Even if they didn’t do that, it still puts a wrinkle in the justification when the government of the territory we’re defending is friendly and cooperative with the government of the territory we’re (illegally) attacking in the name of their defense.
Don’t confuse the situation with nuance and detail. WE NEED TO BOMB THE GUYS WHO BEHEADED AMERICANS!!!
He’s saving that one for Belarus.
The notion is that the Syrian government doesn’t control that territory anymore, so their permission is irrelevant. The territory effectively belongs to ISIS.
It certainly would create issues with the “we are helping Iraq with self-defence” justification if Iraq told the US not to aid them in this particular way. Is this at all likely, given Iraq’s current desperation and vulnerability?
The use of the term “illegally” is begging the question. If the justification is correct, the action is not “illegal” - that’s the whole point of the analysis, to determine whether the action is “illegal” or not.
No, Syria has fallen apart for lots of reasons other than the US.
You’ll notice the US wasn’t behind the '82 revolution crushed with the Hama massacre.
Note, I’m not suggesting getting involved in it but Americans have this absurd tendency to blame themselves for every bad thing that happens across the world or claim credit for every good thing that happens.
Is this aimed at me? 
I’m not a US jingo.
I don’t know if it’s likely, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if it were to happen. If Iran were to pull some strings, I don’t doubt they could get Iraq to tell us not to aid them in that particular way. My guess is that Iran will allow it up until the point that ISIL is greatly weakened, then they will disallow it so that they can move in and claim the coup de grace.
Yeah, that’s why I set the “illegally” bit off in parenthesis. In the end, legality really amounts to who’s doing the analysis and what you can get away with.
The problem may be that the reinvigorating of US presence weakens Iranian pull. Right now, while both may hate the notion, both the US and Iran are de facto allies vs. ISIS …
I’m a realist on these matters as well, but there is I think some objective content to ‘international law’ in terms of peace and war be discussed - if only from a ‘compliance pull’ perspective.
Not only that, but they really, really don’t want to lose the current Syrian regime, particularly to Sunnis. It doesn’t take much more than a glance at a map of the region to see just how surrounded they are by rivals and countries that have been either invaded by, or are friendly with, the US. Losing Syria would be quite the blow.
As much as the US might hate it, I don’t think a lot of people realize just how much *more *the Iranians must hate that notion.
Whoooooosh!
I’m not sure about that. I think the Iranians don’t understand why we AREN’T allies with them instead of being allies with Saudi Arabia. And frankly, I wonder that myself. If, that is, we have to choose between the two. Might have something to do with oil, though. The Saudis having more of it, that is.
Ya got me. 
That’s completely beside the point. While they may not understand why we’re not allies with them instead of countries like Saudi Arabia, they are under no illusions that we aren’t their most significant threat. And, concerning our interests in the region, the feeling is mutual. We’ve been at cold war with Iran since the revolution, and after “Axis of Evil”, invasion of their neighbors, sanction after painful sanction while steadfastly opposing their nuclear ambitions, and now threats to Syria and brushing them off re: efforts against ISIL, how could they NOT be hating the prospect of finding themselves on the the same side as – but vastly subordinate to – the US, which is ready to come back into their region swinging its giant dick, as if to say “I told you, you needed us! Iran can’t even protect their own neighborhood puppet states!”
It’s somewhat similar to what has happened before - after all, Iranians must have had the same conflicted feelings watching the US demolish Saddam in the first gulf war.