Tag: chemical weapons

More on Syria

My high school and college friend, Bill Hulsy, now living in Southern California, offers his analysis of Obama’s justification for attaching Syria:

Dear Friends:

This e-mail will discuss the various flaws in the arguments provided by the Obama Administration for an attack on Syria.  There are seven major flaws in the argument, to wit:  1) the predicate proof is unsatisfactory and unpersuasive, 2) the action is illegal under our law and international law, 3) the Chemical Weapons Convention does not provide a legal basis for this action, 4) the ostensible beneficiaries and cheerleaders of this action are bad actors, 5) this action is a pretext for War with Iran, 6) the United States has no moral standing since we have both used and aided and abetted the use of chemical weapons, and 7) U.S. loss of face is the problem of Obama himself, and a lesser alternative to bad policy.

This proposed action is predicated on alleged use of chemical gas by the government of Syria.  This contention is illogical as the Syrian government was winning the civil war, and the use of chemical agents is an act of desperation.  Much of Syria has been overrun by the rebels and they have captured many munitions and that includes chemical agents.  The Internet is full of pictures and stories showing that the Syrian rebels have chemical agents.  Logic suggests their use of the gas as a “false flag” operation.

The whole post-WWII peace process has been based on the use of the United Nations.  The United Nations Charter was adopted and ratified by the United States in 1945.  It is a treaty and is United States law.  Article 42 provides that force may be used individually or collectively by signators only if approved by the Security Council.  The only exception is the right of “self defense.” which is permitted under Article 51.  There is no special exception for chemical warfare.

The Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted in 1993.  Syria is not a signatory.  That convention has no enforcement mechanism.  Hence, there is no right to wage war or commit acts of war (such as proposed) pursuant to some “norm” of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The rebels in Syria are Sunni jihadis.  These are the same people who attacked the United States on 9/11.  Syria is a secular, not a religious state.  The Christians (numbering 2 million souls) make up 10% of the population.  The government protects the interests of the minorities in Syria of which the Christians are one.  The Sunni jihadis want to commit a sectarian cleansing, driving the Syrian Christians into Lebanon.  For a look at what a Sunni jihadi victory would look like, from a religious point of view, see what happened to the Christian community in Iraq after the Iraq War.

This attack is nothing but a pretext for a War with Iran.  This attack will provoke counter-measures by Syria’s allies.  Either an agent of Iran (or one of our agents operating in Iran) will fire a missile at a U.S. ship or tanker and, then, immediately we will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the war will be on.  Israel will attack Hezbolla in Lebanon, reactively or pre-emptively,  Russia will cut off oil supplies to Europe.  United States assets all over Arabia and the Moslem world will be at risk.  I believe that is the real reason for the attack on Syria–to promote war with Iran.  It is the American Way.

Not only does the United States have no legal standing for this attack, but, also it has no moral standing to attack Syria.  We used Agent Orange in Vietnam, which was a chemical agent.  We used phosphorus in Fallouja, and we aided and abetted Iraq in its use of gas in warfare in its war with Iran.  We provided the intelligence for where the gas was to be placed to devastate the Iranians where they were massing troops.

It is said that America will lose face if Congress does not approve an attack.  Well, even if that is true, the fault will be Obama’s since lacked any legal or moral power to draw “red lines” regarding the conduct and internal affairs of independent states.  The alternative to the “loss of face” is much worse.  Mr. Obama styles himself a Constitutional Scholar.  He should have known better.

William S. Hulsy
Attorney at Law

Syria and the Red Line

On August 21, 2013, a chemical weapons attack killed 1,429 men, women and children on the outskirts of Damascus. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry attribute the horrifying attack to the Assad government. The Geneva Protocol of 1925, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, and the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 forbid the use of chemical weapons. The use of force to punish violators of the ban may be authorized by the UN Security Council. The United States is not unilaterally authorized under international law to do so.

President Obama continues to surprise me. Despite over a 100,000 casualties in Syria’s two-year plus civil war, he has wisely resisted direct involvement in a conflict that the U.S. has no obvious self-interest in. We have no real control over the unfolding events and outcome of the struggle underway there. Unfortunately, there is no plausible outcome that serves our interest in peace and democracy in the region much less in having a friendly regime. There is no obvious successor to Assad’s regime, though radical Islamism (al Qaeda) forces seem to currently dominate the anti-government forces. Edward Luttwak argues in a NY Times op-ed that a stalemate is the least bad of bad options. “In-Syria America Loses if Either Side Wins”

Obama then foolishly drew a red line against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. It now seems very likely that Assad has crossed it in a big way. If the U.S. does not act decisively it will lose credibility and its red lines will become meaningless. If it acts, as Obama has suggested, in a limited, “surgical” manner that does not tip the balance of Syria’s civil war, will it have “taught” Assad a lesson that will detour him from using chemical weapons in the future? More likely it will affirm U.S. powerlessness in the area. And what about the inevitable collateral damage even if our rockets hit their intended targets and Syria’s unpredictable countermeasures? In a statement released September 1, the International Crisis Group stated that: “To precisely gauge in advance the impact of a U.S. military attack, regardless of its scope and of efforts to carefully calibrate it, by definition is a fool’s errand…. Consequences almost certainly will be unpredictable.” “Syria Statement”

In a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that: “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.” More recently he added that: “Simply the application of force rarely produces and, in fact, maybe never produce the outcome we seek.” According to Daniel Byman of Brookings Institute “A limited bombing campaign against Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure is likely to produce the worst of all worlds: raising expectations and further involving the United States in the Syrian civil war without significantly altering the balance of forces on the ground.” “Syria Crisis-Military Action”

Syria’s use of chemical weapons without consequences could render their prohibition toothless. However, not only is the US not legally authorized to police world agreements, it can’t afford to go into another war and still remain economically and militarily strong. Given Russian and Chinese opposition, the UN Security Council will not authorize the use of force. A U.S. attack on Syria would violate international law every bit as much as Syria’s apparent use of chemical weapons has. That does not mean that nothing can be done within the framework of the law in reaction to the use of chemical weapons. If we continue to disregard international law, why would we expect others to abide by it? Globalization, which has dramatically reduced poverty around the world, would suffer. We would be left to police the world by military force (and how has that been working for us?) until we burned ourselves out.

In his rose garden address to the nation Saturday the President said that: “I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets….  And I’m prepared to give that order.” His surprise, however, was his promise to seek Congress’s authorization, something he had not considered necessary for Libya. “But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests,… I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.” Regrettably he did not seem to seek this authorization as a legal requirement of the constitution but rather as a pragmatic way to build public support. What ever his reason the step is welcomed.

Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith reviewed the legal arguments over the President’s war powers in a recent New York Times article: “What Happened to the Rule of Law?”  The Obama administration has pushed Presidential authority further than any previous administration. A return to the rule of law, domestically and internationally, is America’s best chance of survival in a dramatically changing world.

Congress should say no to Obama’s request for an illegal and unpromising attack on Syria. But we can thank him for asking.