The US Military Strike in Syria was Unjustified

There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime and a horrific act of aggression against one’s own citizens. It must not be brushed over lightly. But: the only institution to deal with this is the UN, and the member states should finally see to it that the Security Council is reformed. Here the “enough is enough” comment is apt.
But international law is international law: I think the article below captures well what is at stake regarding international conflicts: International law does NOT allow for military strikes as ‘warning’, ‘response to beautiful dying children’, let alone as retaliation to regain one’s own emotional stability – and it certainly prohibits military actions to lift domestic poll numbers or support of one’s policies. Which of these motivated the strike? It does not matter, because: Motivations for actions are not the same as reasons for actions – and the reasons are a much bigger problem than the motives we might want to speculate about:
1. There was NO justified reason for this strike; it does NOT help a single Syrian citizen. Apparently, Assad used his power for another Chemical Weapon (Chloride) attack yesterday, Friday April 7, 2017 – while US TV celebrated Trump for having “finally” become “presidential”.
2. The strike was not authorized – neither nationally nor internationally (see article below for details). Period. War authorization procedures have been set up exactly for these cases, and one may wonder whether the US Administration even has a clue about the fine-print of international law.
3. The strike was strategically not prudent, because it risks another escalation in the region. People ask: where is the policy strategy? – There is no strategy other than showing off: “here, we are also players in the game”. I am not surprised that McCain and HILLARY CLINTON backed the strike: both stand for a politics that sees the US as a strong military power that is justified to intervene in conflicts if it serves its own vision of the world order – and justified even in cases that contradict international law.
4. The confusion of motives and reasons is common. And yet: it makes the US president dependent on TV images and TV coverage, and dependent on his emotional ‘gut’ reaction to media images. While we are all, at least in part, prone to the coverage and the images we receive through our media, most of us are not politicians, and we don’t have all the experts in the world at hand to check and balance and distinguish short-term from long-term policies and prudent political decisions.
5. The turn (or historically: re-turn) to politics as (mere) demonstration of power is Machiavellian at best, autocratic at worst. As long as there is a Parliament/Congress that has power and authority, it has the duty to speak out against this unauthorized and therefore illegal military action of the US president.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s