Issues Under Fire: The Air strikes: Were They Legal?

 

Issues Under Fire: The Air Strikes: Were They Legal? 

Were the U.S. led air strikes against Syria a violation of international law? That's a rhetorical question. The U.S., the U.K, and France claimed to have proof Bashar al-Assad was responsible for using chemical weapons against his people, but that proof has yet to be shared with the international community. The attacks were launched before chemical weapons inspectors could conduct an independent investigation. The OPCW (The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has finally arrived for a fact-finding mission, but, the damage is already done. What if the inspectors can't find evidence of an attack?. Or if they do, what if they can't prove the Assad government was the culprit? These are the serious questions that demand serious answers. Let's start with the legality of the air strikes.

The U.N. has rules governing the Use of Force by states, and those rules are clear, specific, and easy to understand. Simply put, you can defend yourself if attacked. It's called self-defense. That's a no-brainer. You can attack someone else if you have evidence they're preparing to attack you first. This is called using pre-emptive force. Another no-brainer. You can attack another nation if that nation is threatening the lives and safety of your citizens living or working in that nation. This one is a stretch, but the U.S. has used it frequently to gain public support for military engagement. Hey, you gotta protect your peeps. And last but not least, is humanitarian intervention. While humanitarian intervention is often used just to justify attacking another country, it's been used so inconsistently and selectively, one can always presume ulterior motives and considerations are at play. Humanitarian intervention my ass!

If the U.S., the U.K., and France cared so much about the humanitarian crisis in Syria, they'd have had a more robust response to the Syrian civil war that history will ultimately remember them for. The reality is, these Western powers have never had a strategy to achieve a political or military solution. With estimates of nearly 500,000 killed, hundreds of thousands wounded, and millions more displaced and in need of food, shelter, and protection, humane would hardly be an accurate description of how the West approached the Syrian crisis. The U.S., the U.K, and France have all significantly reduced the numbers of refugees allowed entry for sanctuary and asylum. In fact, the United States has only admitted 11 Syrian refugees into the country this year. Citing homeland security concerns, America simply couldn't trust them. So, the United States did the next worse thing. Arm regional fighters.

However, training and arming anyone who'd fight the Assad government was actually counterproductive, as that strategy actually invited some of the worse radicalized elements to join the fight. The numbers of bad actors with nefarious motives operating in Syria became impossible to count. And not only was that number impossible to count, those numbers couldn't be counted on. As fate would have it, many who were trained and provided weapons, reportedly sold those weapons to ISIS, or al Qaeda and joined the fight against U.S. interests. Operating in a caldron of unsavory characters, any one of them could've gained access to chemical weapons to be used for their own evil ends. In my humble view, this sounds far more probable than what the West is selling to date. 

To ask one to accept the West's explanation of the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons, when conventional weapons were more than sufficient to get the job done, is to ask one to suspend common sense. One would have to ask, why would the Assad government launch chemical attacks that would only invite international condemnation when government forces have, for the most part, defeated its opposition? ISIS and company were on the run and had few places to hide. The Syrian government, backed by Russia and Iran, was entering the mop-up phase of hostilities. The Trump administration had ended covert aid to Syrian rebels back in July of 2017. And as recently as two weeks ago, Donald Trump signaled he wanted out of Syria in the worst way. So, one has to ask, why the need to use a chemical weapon? And why use them now? It doesn't make sense. In fact, none of this story makes sense.

Bottom line: Despite the fact that no loss of life was reported and damages appeared to be minimal, the U.K.'s Prime Minister Teresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron are facing tough questions from their respective Parliaments. Not so in the U.S.; the U.S. Congress is virtually silent. May was criticized for not seeking parliamentary approval for the coordinated attack and Marcon was accused of engaging in an "irresponsible escalation" that did not have European or French parliament support. But considering the United States is being led by a pathological liar, Congress' silence is deafening. And that makes the least sense of all. That's why I'm asking the questions. Podcast below.