Was Trump's strike on Syria justified?
Ever since Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people last week and President Trump vowed to respond, the pressing question has been: What would that response look like—a limited, one-time strike or something more expansive and dangerous? Since it appears Trump opted for the former—his ridiculous “mission accomplished” tweet this morning seemed to be further confirmation that this is over, at least for the time being—we can assess the arguments for and against what was done.
The case against last night’s airstrikes is straightforward and pretty convincing. For one thing, as with last year’s similar strikes, they were probably illegal. As quite a few Democrats and a few Republicans are pointing out, Congress did not authorize this action. Defense Secretary James Mattis’s argument on Friday night that the president was authorized to order strikes under Article II of the constitution is dubious, given that it’s hard to argue Assad’s chemical weapons attacks threatened Americans or U.S. interests. Paul Ryan’s argument earlier this week that a strike on a regime fighting againstal-Qaida is justified by the 2001 authorization targeting the perpetrators of 9/11—in other words, al-Qaida—is patently ridiculous. In his remarks last night, the president referred to international law, namely Assad’s violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, but these strikes were not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. And though Britain and France participated, they were not even sanctioned by a multilateral coalition like NATO.
As for the strategic case, given that the action was fairly limited, in order to minimize the risk of Russian and civilian casualties—the Pentagon says other chemical weapons targets were left undestroyed because of those risks—it seems unlikely to do more to deter Assad’s future chemical weapons use than last year’s strikes. Even if it does, the focus on chemical weapons also sends the implicit message that any of the other forms of atrocity against civilians this regime has engaged in—barrel bombs, torture, rape, mass starvation—are tolerable. If the strikes have any impact at all on the larger conflict in Syria, they are more likely to lengthen than shorten it.
AdvertisementBut the case forthe strikes should not be immediately dismissed either. Chemical weapons are different. Assad is violating an international norm that actually predates the first widespread use of these weapons in World War I and has been fairly successful at limiting them. More importantly, he’s violating a specific agreement made in 2013 to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention and turn over his stockpile. At a time when the Chemical Weapons Convention is being flouted, not just in Syria but also on the streets of England, last night’s strikes show that there can be consequences to such violations. Assad may consider these strikes a manageable price to pay, but most world leaders don’t really want to be in Assad’s position. As with nuclear-related sanctions, the strikes are as much about deterring future use as about punishing violators.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementAlso, while the lack of U.N. approval, due to Russia’s veto on the Security Council, weakens the legal case for intervention, international law is rarely cut and dried. Given that Russia, as Assad’s patron, is at least somewhat complicit in his crimes, it’s hard to make a moral case that its approval should be required before any action is taken to punish them.
The strikes also send a message that Russia cannot fully dictate the terms of the Syrian conflict—its claims throughout the week that it would shoot down any U.S. missiles appear to have been bluster, and its new threats of reprisals are likely much of the same. The risks of direct conflict are real and shouldn’t be downplayed, but the U.S. and its allies have at least shown it is possible to take on Assad without provoking a shooting war between two nuclear-armed superpowers.
AdvertisementAt the very least, Trump’s critics in the U.S. should acknowledge that the limited action taken on Friday was not some sort of warmongering Trumpian lunacy. Many members of Barack Obama’s administration wanted him to take similar action in 2013, and it’s not at all a stretch to imagine Hillary Clinton doing the same under the circumstances faced by Trump.
AdvertisementHowever, this action can’tbe considered in isolation, and the man making the decision does matter. If this was a largely symbolic move, then the larger context of the Trump administration affects that symbolism. The leader Trump now calls “animal Assad” was just as much of a war criminal, and just as willing to kill and torture innocent children, when Trump was touting him as a potential partner against ISIS during his presidential campaign. Trump’s opposition to admitting the victims of the Syrian war to the U.S. as refugees, and his removal of safeguards meant to prevent civilian casualties from anti-ISIS airstrikes undermine his sudden concern for the Syrian people. Just as his praise of other tyrants around the world and his past cavalier attitude toward torture and nuclear weapons undermine his sudden concern for human rights and the laws of war. It’s hard to build a moral case for humanitarian intervention, always a dicey business to begin with, if you have no humanitarian credibility.
Advertisement AdvertisementEven if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt and assume he is just uniquely concerned about the proliferation and use of chemical weapons, he has not been consistent on that front either. When asked Friday night why the numerous chlorine gas attacks over the past year did not provoke a similar response, Mattis didn’t have much of an answer.
Taking the legal and strategic objections into account, it’s still possible to imagine a situation where limited strikes like those we saw Friday night could be justified and potentially even lead to a positive outcome, particularly if coupled with an overall effort to protect Syrian civilians and a diplomatic offensive to match the military one, aimed at resolving the Syrian conflict. The past year has given little reason for confidence that that’s what we’re going to see now.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:资讯)
- 两个改造提升项目进入收尾阶段
- The weirdest things Russian trolls did to swing the 2016 election
- Today in conservative media: Matt Lauer’s firing exposes the press’s liberal tribalism.
- 青川发生5.4级地震 雅安震感明显
- Listeners encouraged to go wild with Le Sserafim's 4th EP
- Get Thee to Totality: Chicago
- 把关爱铭记于心 激励自己与病魔作斗争
- Anthony Kennedy’s equal rights rulings prior to Cakeshop should have been easy to predict.
- Trump’s selfish reason for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
- Flying spaghetti monster and unworldly life filmed in deep sea footage
- 增强责任感 把握基本原则 积极推进各项改革
- Daily GOP tax bill chat: Senate advances tax reform legislation
- Parkland student activists get real on 'The Ellen Show'
-
US to oppose North Korean worker dispatch to occupied Ukrainian territory: State Dept.
Spokeperson for the State Department Matthew Miller speaks during a press briefing in Washington, D. ...[详细] -
Today in conservative media: Tax cuts for the rich are a moral necessity.
Today in Conservative Media is a daily roundup of the biggest stories in the right-wing press.Conser ...[详细] -
Australian gov't warns released student not to return to North Korea
Australian Alek Sigley smiles as he arrives at Haneda International airport in Tokyo, Japan, July 4. ...[详细] -
Kim receives 'excellent' letter from Trump: North Korea
North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reads a personal letter from U.S. President Donald Trump at his offi ...[详细] -
“新丰味”喜获中国首届县域品牌擂台赛十大营销创新品牌_南方+_南方plus8月24日,中国首届县域品牌擂台赛总决赛在广州举行。韶关市新丰县农产品区域公用品牌“新丰味”荣获十大营销创新品牌之一。“新丰味 ...[详细]
-
年销售额突破4亿元!新雨润打造“顺德味”有三大秘诀丨对话中国预制菜百强企业②
年销售额突破4亿元!新雨润打造“顺德味”有三大秘诀丨对话中国预制菜百强企业②_南方+_南方plus编者按:近年来,我国预制菜产业呈现出迅猛的发展态势,市场规模不断扩大,产业链和生产标准日益完善。其中, ...[详细] -
How Republicans will use a Roy Moore victory to absolve him of sexual assault.
This article has been updated to incorporate Mitch McConnell’s latest comments about Roy Moore.Two w ...[详细] -
[Feature] Why do old people pick up cardboard in Seoul?
A senior citizen drags a handcart full of cardboard through the streets of Seoul. (Yonhap)When the t ...[详细] -
Expanded police surveillance will get us “broken windows” on steroids.
Across the United States, cities are spending a larger share of the money at their disposal buying a ...[详细] -
An interview with Alan Dershowitz on Trump and the Mueller investigation.
“I have been right more than any other pundit,” Alan Dershowitz exclaimed Monday afternoon. “Do you ...[详细]