Cross-posted from Consortium News
President Barack Obama talks with Ambassador Samantha Power, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, following a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Sept. 12, 2013.
(image by (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)) DMCA
The Obama administration has devised an extraordinary legal justification for carrying out bombing attacks inside Syria: that the United States and its Persian Gulf allies have the right to defend Iraq against the Islamic State because the Syrian government is unable to stop the cross-border terror group.
"The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself," said the U.S. letter delivered by Ambassador Samantha Power to United Nations officials...
"Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL [Islamic State] threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq's borders."
In other words, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and other enemies of Syria covertly backed the rebels inside Syria and watched as many of them -- including thousands of the U.S.-preferred "moderates" -- took their newly acquired military skills to al-Qaeda affiliates and other terrorist organizations. Then, the U.S. and its allies have the audacity to point to the existence of those terror groups inside Syria as a rationale for flying bombing raids into Syria.
Another alarming part of the U.S. legal theory is that among this new "coalition of the willing" -- the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan -- only Jordan shares a border with Syria. So, this novel principle would mean that distant countries have the right to destabilize a country from afar and then claim the destabilization justifies mounting military attacks inside that country.
Such a theory -- if accepted as a new standard of behavior -- could wreak havoc on international order which is based on the principle of national sovereignty. The U.S. theory also stands in marked contrast to Washington's pious embrace of strict readings of international law when denouncing Russia just this summer for trying to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine from brutal assaults by the U.S.-backed coup regime in Kiev.
In Ukraine, the Obama administration rejected any and all mitigating circumstances, such as the overthrow of an elected president and the coup regime's use of artillery, airstrikes and even neo-Nazi militias to suppress eastern Ukraine's ethnic Russian population. In the Ukraine case, the Obama administration insisted that national sovereignty was inviolable despite the fact that the Feb. 22 coup had violated Ukraine's constitutional order and had produced a human rights disaster.
An entirely different set of rules were applied to Syria, where President Barack Obama decided that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "must go" and where Obama authorized the CIA to provide arms, training and money for supposedly "moderate" rebels. Other U.S. "allies," such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, supported some of the more extreme anti-Assad groups.
Israel's right-wing Likud government also was eager for "regime change" in Syria as were America's influential neoconservatives who saw Assad's overthrow as a continuation of their strategy of removing Middle East leaders regarded as hostile to Israel. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the first on the list with Syria and Iran to follow. In those cases, the application of international law was entirely optional.
Before President George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003, the U.S. government came up with another convenient argument, claiming the war was an act of American self-defense because otherwise Hussein might give his "weapons of mass destruction" to al-Qaeda for use against U.S. targets. As it turned out, Hussein had no WMDs and was a bitter enemy of al-Qaeda, which didn't exist in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion.
The overthrow and subsequent execution of Hussein turned Iraq into a cauldron of bloody chaos, pitting Shiites against Sunnis and creating a fertile environment for a group of brutal Sunni extremists who took the name "al-Qaeda in Iraq."
But Official Washington is slow to learn lessons. In 2011, the Obama administration's "liberal interventionists" threw their weight behind a Sunni-led uprising to oust Assad, who runs a harsh but largely secular government with key support from Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other minorities who feared Sunni extremism.
As with Iraq, Syria's sectarian violence drew in many Sunni extremists, including jihadists associated with al-Qaeda, particularly the Nusra Front but also "al-Qaeda in Iraq" which rebranded itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or simply the Islamic State. Eventually, al-Qaeda leaders rejected the Islamic State because it had become a rival of the Nusra Front and because its brutality was too graphic even for al-Qaeda.
Despite the growing radicalism of Syrian rebels, Official Washington's influential neocons and the "liberal interventionists" continued the drumbeat for ousting Assad, a position also shared by Israeli leaders who went so far as to indicate they would prefer Damascus to fall to al-Qaeda extremists rather than have Iranian ally Assad retain control. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Israel Sides with Syrian Jihadists."]
Whenever there was a chance to push Obama into ordering a U.S. military assault on Assad's government, "the Assad-must-go crowd" pressed the argument. For instance, a still-mysterious Sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013, was immediately blamed on Assad's forces. The neocons and the "liberal interventionists" demanded an air war to punish the Syrian government -- and possibly open the way for a rebel victory.