There are multiple points of view about Syria and military intervention right now. In essence they condense to should we or should we not intervene militarily. These opinions have been based variously on human rights violations, use of chemical weapons, replacement of the Assad regime, stopping violence in the Arab world and concern over oil supplies. I contend that essentially all of this is pablum.
The United States has a couple of reasons that we may intervene anywhere. These reasons are articulated in self interest and international law. They include-
-direct attack upon us;
-proximate threat to our safety;
-violation of international law to which we are signatories
-human rights violations
All these things have been used as justification for war (politely called military intervention) in the last 60 years. However, like the Versailles Treaty, the application of these principles has been irregular. Complicating their application is that neither we nor several other countries are signatories to all parts of international law.
It is not broadly known that 'the Geneva Convention' is in fact a set of 4 treaties and then 3 protocols, written to reflect the changes in warfare since the first Geneva Convention in 1949. The US has NOT signed all 7 parts, and like other signatories has disputed or rejected parts of all the treaties. There are additional treaties and conventions that deal with biological weapons and nuclear weapons that are separate entirely from the Geneva Conventions. Further, it is not enough for a head of state to sign a treaty. In the US and other countries it must be ratified to be in effect. The League of Nations foundered over this problem. We and others did not ratify the treaty despite signing it. The United Nations is simply the League with some minor re-wording, which countries in their horror over WW 2 were willing to sign in 1949 as opposed to 1922.
With regard to Syria, the US has NOT signed Protocols I and II. The US has signed the treaties addressing treatment of civilians but interestingly not of non-uniformed combatants. For all the hoopla in the press about Bush's violation of rights and treaties with the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, he was and is entirely legally correct. Syria signed the Biological Weapons Treaty, but has NOT ratified it. Syria is thus not bound by its restrictions. Further, the interpretation of treatment of civilians has become a very muddy part of Geneva unless dealing with overt genocidal actions, such as those in Kosovo.
If we assume that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population this may not be illegal under international law. First, Syria has not restricted itself with regard to use of chemical weapons. Second, there has been no attempt as genocide. Third, the Syrian rebels are not uniformed combatants and thus not necessarily protected by Geneva and other treaties. Most telling, the use of chemical weapons within a country's own borders or own population is NOT prohibited, only international use is restricted. Further, their use is not restricted during a civil conflict. Thus it is perfectly legal to use tear gas during riots or other domestic disturbances but paradoxically and idiotically it is illegal to use it in international conflict. International law and convention thus truly do not apply to Syria even had it used chemical weapons.
This says nothing about the morality of such acts but rather their international legal basis. Is a moral violation a reason to attack someone? During WW 2 it was not, even though we were aware of the concentration and mass killing of Jews. We and other states rejected mass immigration of German Jews, even knowing their plight. While tu quoque arguments are not a justification for immoral acts, it is hard for one country to claim the moral superiority to judge another when said country has acted equally immorally. This problem dogged the Nuremberg trials and is a quiet stumbling block to this day. In essence, the actions of the loser are declared immoral while the actions of the winner are swept under the rug. This was the case with Allied bombing of Japanese and German cities, where conventional weaponry killed as many as 100,000 civilians in a single raid on at least 2 occasions, and greater than 30,000 in one night on numerous occasions. The 'outrageous' treatment of Russian prisoners by the Germans was equaled by German prisoners treated bestially by the Russians. Yet the Germans were condemned and the Russians ignored not only for their treatment of German prisoners but for the starvation and slaughter of millions of their own civilians. At Bad Kreuznach more than a half million German prisoners were herded by the US under inadequate conditions, leading to thousands of deaths. These have been denied, but to this day there are substantial areas of presumed mass graves off limits to all. In excusing these crimes it is hard to muster the moral outrage to attack Syria for killing a couple of hundred people with gas.
I don't see how the US has anything at stake in Syria. No vital US interests are being degraded; indeed, the very threat of a US attack has spiked oil prices and produced threats of retaliation against an ally, Israel. The 'Arab Spring' has degenerated mostly into military rule and warfare, and Syria is only one, and not the most important one, of several countries in turmoil.
In Terminator 2, the Terminator is told he just can't kill people, and he asks 'Why?'. This question, seemingly immoral, is rational. People die in horrible conflicts all the time. I am all for speaking up for these people, for protesting, for isolating governments that do these things. But we are not the world's moral police. Somehow we felt no imperative to intervene when Hutus and Tutsis slaughtered each other. Talk about racism. It's OK for blacks to kill each other but not Arabs? The British and French feel very strongly about the events in Syria. Let THEM ante up and attack. They have aircraft carriers. Why do we have to do these things? Unfortunately our President has declared use of WMD a 'line in the sand' the crossing of which will trigger a response.
I hope he has the brains and the cojones to NOT feel like he has to prove the masculinity of himself and the US by punching someone who is doing absolutely nothing to us.
Ted
The United States has a couple of reasons that we may intervene anywhere. These reasons are articulated in self interest and international law. They include-
-direct attack upon us;
-proximate threat to our safety;
-violation of international law to which we are signatories
-human rights violations
All these things have been used as justification for war (politely called military intervention) in the last 60 years. However, like the Versailles Treaty, the application of these principles has been irregular. Complicating their application is that neither we nor several other countries are signatories to all parts of international law.
It is not broadly known that 'the Geneva Convention' is in fact a set of 4 treaties and then 3 protocols, written to reflect the changes in warfare since the first Geneva Convention in 1949. The US has NOT signed all 7 parts, and like other signatories has disputed or rejected parts of all the treaties. There are additional treaties and conventions that deal with biological weapons and nuclear weapons that are separate entirely from the Geneva Conventions. Further, it is not enough for a head of state to sign a treaty. In the US and other countries it must be ratified to be in effect. The League of Nations foundered over this problem. We and others did not ratify the treaty despite signing it. The United Nations is simply the League with some minor re-wording, which countries in their horror over WW 2 were willing to sign in 1949 as opposed to 1922.
With regard to Syria, the US has NOT signed Protocols I and II. The US has signed the treaties addressing treatment of civilians but interestingly not of non-uniformed combatants. For all the hoopla in the press about Bush's violation of rights and treaties with the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, he was and is entirely legally correct. Syria signed the Biological Weapons Treaty, but has NOT ratified it. Syria is thus not bound by its restrictions. Further, the interpretation of treatment of civilians has become a very muddy part of Geneva unless dealing with overt genocidal actions, such as those in Kosovo.
If we assume that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population this may not be illegal under international law. First, Syria has not restricted itself with regard to use of chemical weapons. Second, there has been no attempt as genocide. Third, the Syrian rebels are not uniformed combatants and thus not necessarily protected by Geneva and other treaties. Most telling, the use of chemical weapons within a country's own borders or own population is NOT prohibited, only international use is restricted. Further, their use is not restricted during a civil conflict. Thus it is perfectly legal to use tear gas during riots or other domestic disturbances but paradoxically and idiotically it is illegal to use it in international conflict. International law and convention thus truly do not apply to Syria even had it used chemical weapons.
This says nothing about the morality of such acts but rather their international legal basis. Is a moral violation a reason to attack someone? During WW 2 it was not, even though we were aware of the concentration and mass killing of Jews. We and other states rejected mass immigration of German Jews, even knowing their plight. While tu quoque arguments are not a justification for immoral acts, it is hard for one country to claim the moral superiority to judge another when said country has acted equally immorally. This problem dogged the Nuremberg trials and is a quiet stumbling block to this day. In essence, the actions of the loser are declared immoral while the actions of the winner are swept under the rug. This was the case with Allied bombing of Japanese and German cities, where conventional weaponry killed as many as 100,000 civilians in a single raid on at least 2 occasions, and greater than 30,000 in one night on numerous occasions. The 'outrageous' treatment of Russian prisoners by the Germans was equaled by German prisoners treated bestially by the Russians. Yet the Germans were condemned and the Russians ignored not only for their treatment of German prisoners but for the starvation and slaughter of millions of their own civilians. At Bad Kreuznach more than a half million German prisoners were herded by the US under inadequate conditions, leading to thousands of deaths. These have been denied, but to this day there are substantial areas of presumed mass graves off limits to all. In excusing these crimes it is hard to muster the moral outrage to attack Syria for killing a couple of hundred people with gas.
I don't see how the US has anything at stake in Syria. No vital US interests are being degraded; indeed, the very threat of a US attack has spiked oil prices and produced threats of retaliation against an ally, Israel. The 'Arab Spring' has degenerated mostly into military rule and warfare, and Syria is only one, and not the most important one, of several countries in turmoil.
In Terminator 2, the Terminator is told he just can't kill people, and he asks 'Why?'. This question, seemingly immoral, is rational. People die in horrible conflicts all the time. I am all for speaking up for these people, for protesting, for isolating governments that do these things. But we are not the world's moral police. Somehow we felt no imperative to intervene when Hutus and Tutsis slaughtered each other. Talk about racism. It's OK for blacks to kill each other but not Arabs? The British and French feel very strongly about the events in Syria. Let THEM ante up and attack. They have aircraft carriers. Why do we have to do these things? Unfortunately our President has declared use of WMD a 'line in the sand' the crossing of which will trigger a response.
I hope he has the brains and the cojones to NOT feel like he has to prove the masculinity of himself and the US by punching someone who is doing absolutely nothing to us.
Ted
Agreed. It would be a mistake for the U.S. to militarily intervene in Syria.
ReplyDeleteEven if it wanted to, the U.S. is not capable of policing the world. So of the hundreds of conflicts going on in the world right now, why choose Syria? The old principle of "I ain't got a dog in this fight" ought to be observed.
See: http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223
As sad as it is to see people in Syria suffer, their salvation should come from within.
-D-