If anyone is really interested in the justification under international law, which the OP seemed to be seeking, the UN Charter specifically states that countries may undertake individual or collective self-defense measures under Article 51, until such time as the UN Security Council decides what to do.
I think it is fairly clear that if Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and perhaps others believe that ISIL is a threat to them, then the UN Charter should not be construed so as to compel each of those states to fight individually against ISIL. I believe collective self defense means that Iraq is free to join with the US, Iran, or green men from the moon in order to repel the ISIL invasion.
So - if US believes Mexican crime cartels to be a threat to the US, and considering that the Mexican government is unwilling or unable (I believe that is the justification formulation upthread) to curtail their activities, then US should be able to invade Mexico or bomb the cartels inside Mexico to “degrade” them - all without being invited by the Mexican government or in any way coordinating it with them? According to the UN charter, of course. Just trying to clarify here.
Self defense isn’t a concept that is strictly geographically restricted. For example, when the US started fighting Al Qaeda, it didn’t really matter whether al Qaeda was located in Afghanistan, Sudan, or elsewhere.
If the U.S. seeks to assist Iraq in Iraq’s self defense from a transnational group, then there’s simply no doubt that self defense can be pursued outside of Iraq’s borders, so long as the actions comply with the other established laws relating to self defense, such as proportionality, imminence, etc.
So long as the actions comply with the other established standards of self defense, yes.
One of the key concepts is proportionality: the U.S. could only take such measures to attack the cartels to address the threat. In this case, for example, we couldn’t nuke TJ or invade Mexico City.
*(ETA: I thought I was posting after Terr)
*
It’s actually worse than that, if you consider that ISIL began in Iraq and invaded Syria from there, not the other way around. When you turn it around, would Syria be legally justified in bombing within Iraq (without permission/coordination) in the name of their own self-defense? Under the circumstances, they’d certainly have more direct justification than the US.
Potentially, sure. This is a pretty standard understanding of self defense in international law that has been established for almost two centuries, called the Caroline affair.
A group of rebels in Canada crossed over into the US. The British chased them and done blowed up a ship real good - which was called the Caroline. If the Caroline had been located in Iraq and the Syrians attacked it, there’s a pretty good justification that Syria’s actions would be reasonable.
This was pretty much the essay question on my National Security law school exam way back when (except the cartels crossed over into Texas). It’s a great question.
Ravenman pretty much answered it and we are justified under International Law (we are defending the sovereignty of Iraq).
I’d add we, the US, also need to justify going to war under our own domestic law. Obama is claiming Constitutional authority and the 2001 AUMF (9/11 authorization) to go after ISIS (my post #5). Neither really works in the normal person sense, but what are you going to do - they are bad guys by any definition.
There is also the fact that ISIS is essentially declaring war on the US/attempting to terrorize the US. They’ve released a new video, The Flames of War, which apparently sends this message. Here is the trailer. I haven’t seen the whole thing- actually I can’t find a link to the full version.
I believe that most normal people did. “Were you disillusioned by Bush?” I remember being asked a decade and more ago. My answer was that I hadn’t been illusioned by him in the first place
I’ve already been chastised on this forum for this opinion and called a troll, but what business of ours is it if these people want to all kill each other? “Have at it” I say, but why should we care. If we hadn’t destroyed their country Madman Hussein would probably have stopped them.
My personal opinion has nothing to do with Iraq. It has everything to do with ISIS.
I have no problem with the U.S. attacking them wherever they are. And what that means politically, is I’m not going to speak ill will to my Congressman or media about what the President does no matter my politcal leaning. In fact, I’ll outright agree with it online - except if we are going to do it we need Americans in Syria/Iraq on the ground to tell the missiles where to go because I don’t trust targeting our missiles to non-Americans if civilian lives are at stake.
Actually, IIRC it the deployment of the Smurfs was legally justified by UN laws & resolutions drafted in response to the events in Rwanda. Yugoslavia being part of the UN at the time, you couldn’t even say they weren’t subject to those laws.
Then Serbs & Croats alike started targeting the Smurfs, which in turn was a legit casus belli for an extension of the UN’s mandate.
I was 13 at the time though, so my recollection and understanding of events might not be the best.
And to expand on my read of Iran’s POV, now we’re leading a coalition force of five of Iran’s *Sunni *neighbors in what Iran very much sees as its sandbox. I get the feeling that using moderate Sunni Arabs to counter radical Sunnis isn’t *just *about demonstrating that this is a war on extremists, it’s also intended as a not so subtle demonstration to Iran.
I suspect they’ve received the message loud and clear.
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.