Syria and Our Actions in Response to WMD Use

For John, BLUF:  When you bomb someone you run a risk of making an enemy of them, perhaps a long term enemy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If we go into Syria, along with our Allies, Great Britain and France, in response to Syrian use of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (Chemical Weapons), it can't, under international law, be for the purposes of punishing Syria, as least per one lawyer with experience in international law.

As a matter of international law, “punish” cannot be an objective.  The legitimate functions of an application of military force can be to defeat, to deter, to disrupt, to dissuade, to bend an enemy to our will, and so forth, but it’s the criminal justice system that can punish, inflict pain for the sake of the pain, or extract social revenge.

A distinction that may not be obvious to the casual observer, but the Obama Administration is trying to make some fairly fine distinctions.  For example, any attack would not be about replacing the Assad Regime, but about dealing with Syrian use of WMDs.

Here is how The Blaze characterized the White House view today, as articulated by the President's Press Secretary, Mr Jay Carney.

“I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present significant challenge to, threat to the United States’ national security,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.

Under Obama’s own standard, a threat could justify a military response without direct congressional authorization. Carney was asked about a 2007 interview Obama had with the Boston Globe when the then-presidential candidate said, “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

“As I made clear, it is clearly in the United States’ national security interest that that norm be maintained because the consequences of that standard dissolving are enormous and very detrimental to the United States and very detrimental to the international community, to our allies and partners in the region, and the world at large,” Carney said Tuesday.

I am not sure that the President is going to formally go to Congress over this,♠ before he acts, assuming he acts, which seems pretty obvious from both Secretary Kerry's comments and today's White House press conference.  Here is the Press Secretary:

MR. CARNEY: Well, first of all, I don’t want to engage in speculation about a course of action that has not been decided upon. When the President has an announcement to make, he’ll make it. As this process is undertaken, we are consulting directly with House and Senate leaders in Congress. We are consulting directly with the leadership of the relevant committees as well as with other members of Congress who have a keen interest in this matter. I think you’ve seen that documented by some members who have spoken to it. And that process will continue. We think it’s very important that the consultation process take place in a matter like this of such gravity.

That didn't seem like a positive ratification of Senator Obama's views on Presidential Powers and limits.  I believe the President will execute and then notify Congress, but also tell Congress that he really doesn't have to tell them.♥ 

I have heard that only 9% of the American People are in favor of this.♦

Citizens should be asking themselves if we, the United States, have an interest in touching up Syria over internal use of Chemical Weapons.  We should also ask ourselves if Syria will take this as a limited act over Chemical Weapons, rather than our joining the rebels.  We should also ask ourselves if we think Iran, Russia, China or someone else will react to our action.♣  We should also ask ourselves if there is an escalation ladder and if we will be able to step off at some level.★

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The British Prime Minister has recalled Parliament to talk to them about action against Syria.
♥  War Powers Resolution.
♦  I would bet some of that 9% thought the pollster said "cereal" rather than "Syria".  I base this on my own informal poll of checkout clerks around Lowell and the towns, where sometimes the clerk says "I thought you said cereal".
♣  This would be the World War One scenario, where each nation had its own "Red Line" and each felt it had to act early, to prevent losing an edge.
★  Here is one version of an escalation ladder.  In this version we would be on rung 4 of 16.