A Coordinated Attack on
Syria
By The Editorial
Board
April 13, 2018
President Trump has sometimes seemed to view military action as a game
and foreign policy as something set by online taunts. He seemed to think that
as commander in chief he could simply follow his whims.
So it was reassuring that his military response to a suspected
chemical attack that killed dozens of people in the rebel-held Damascus suburb
of Douma on April 7 was coordinated with Britain and France. In his address to
the nation Friday night, he said that preventing the use of chemical weapons
was in the “vital national security interest of the United States.”
Earlier this week we got his usual bluster. “Get ready Russia, because
they will be coming, nice and new and ‘smart,’” the president said on Twitter
on Wednesday, in his best movie tough-guy impersonation, after a Russian
diplomat warned that his nation’s forces would shoot down any missile fired at
their ally Syria. On Friday night his message to the Syrian regime’s two main
defenders, Russia and Iran, was more measured. “What kind of a nation wants to
be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?” he
asked. “The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep.”
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said that while this was a “one-off”
attack, like the airstrike against Syria a year ago, the targets were involved
in the production and storage of chemical agents, not just an airfield. He
warned of further attacks if Syria used chemical weapons again.
The attack in Douma was an outrage. Photos showed children foaming
from their mouths and nostrils. The World Health
Organization reported that 500 people in Douma had symptoms of exposure to
chemical weapons, and many of those who died had signs of “highly toxic
chemicals.”
Mr. Mattis had tried to slow the rush to a military strike
in part because he felt he needed more evidence to corroborate the charges
against the Syrian government. But on Friday night he attributed the chemical
attack to the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Mattis was also said to be concerned that a bombing campaign could
lead to a wider conflict with Russia and Iran, in a battlespace already teeming
with competing Syrian factions, terrorists, and forces of the United States and
other foreign powers. America has 2,000 troops on the ground fighting ISIS, and
Syria has said it would defend itself. Mr. Mattis said on Friday night that
targets were chosen to reduce the risk of hitting non-Syrian forces.
Still, Mr. Mattis’s willingness and ability to stand up to Mr. Trump’s
rants, and to maintain his trust, in an administration largely stocked with
sycophants might be the only things that keep the United States out of deeper,
poorly planned, military engagements.
Under the United Nations Charter, there are two justifications for
using force against another country without its consent: in self-defense and
with the United Nations Security Council’s permission. The former does not
apply in this case, and the latter would be impossible, given Russia’s veto
power in the Council.
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided between Congress and
the president. In the view of most legal scholars, America’s founders wanted
Congress to decide when to go war, except when the country is under
attack. Since World War II, presidents from both parties have pushed the
boundaries of executive authority and carried out many military operations
without congressional authorizations, as Mr. Trump did last year when he
ordered 59 cruise missiles fired against Syrian targets after a sarin gas
attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.
The War Powers Act in 1973 was supposed to allow Congress to reclaim
some of its clout, but its record in circumscribing the president’s authority
to use military forces in hostilities overseas is mixed. In recent
years, executive branch lawyers have concluded that presidents may
act unilaterally if they decide that a strike would be in the national interest
and that it would fall short of an all-out war involving ground troops.
Congress has largely acquiesced.
Two notable exceptions are the Authorizations for the Use of Military
Force that were passed in 2001 and 2002 after the Sept. 11 attacks to cover
American-led operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively. The 2001
legislation was aimed at Al Qaeda and the Taliban; the 2002 legislation focused
on the threat from the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Since then, President Barack Obama and now Mr. Trump have used those
same authorizations at least 37 times to justify attacks on the Islamic State
and other militant groups in 14 countries, including Yemen, the Philippines,
Kenya, Eritrea and Niger, according to Dan Grazier of the Project on
Government Oversight. This has allowed the Republican-led Congress to avoid
public debate — and any responsibility for sending American men and women into
battle.
This interpretation of the law gives a free hand to the volatile and
thoughtless Mr. Trump, which could prove even more dangerous if he were to
decide to attack North Korea or Iran.
After a relentless push by Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, Bob
Corker, who is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a
Tennessee Republican, is soon expected to propose a new authorization to deal
with military operations against nonstate actors like ISIS.
But legislation should also set limits on a president’s ability to
wage war against states like Syria. Without that, Congress would be once again
abdicating its responsibility and ceding broad powers to an impulsive president
with dubious judgment.
ایران #تهران #قیام_دیماه#اعتصاب #تظاهرات_سراسری #قیام سراسری #اتحاد #آزادی#ما براندازیم #آ
مطالب مارا درتو ئیتر بنام @ bahareazady ودر وبلاک خط سرخ مقاومت دنبال کنید
