Writing about attacking Syria is hard
Apr. 16th, 2018 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexAlmost all the takes I've seen on this have been simplistic and generally wrong, or at least built on top of a set of assumptions that are, at best, unclear. I'm going to noodle at this for a bit.
As I've been saying for years, I believe we (America) are utterly failing at our moral and international responsibilities to aid refugees in the neighboring countries. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have all taken in millions of people and need more aid to serve them. Basic needs such as housing, food/water, sanitation, and healthcare evolve into longer-term needs like schooling, training, resettlement, reunification of families, etc. as the war drags on. None of this is cheap, but we have good relationships and reliable supply lines in all three countries. We should be doing MUCH more on the edges of the conflict.
Add to this the utterly reprehensible policies of this administration toward refugees. Those who leave the conflict zone deserve safe places to resettle until they can go home. They deserve compassionate care, over years, to rebuild lives shattered by war. They deserve a chance to join families living abroad, and a chance to bring their loved ones to live with them.
I stand by claims I made last year: I support action to remove weapons of war from battle zones, be that destroying aircraft, weapons stockpiles, or manufacturing facilities. I also continue to believe that chemical weapons are sufficiently different from other weapons - extra horrible - that we made special treaties to govern them and agreements not to use them. I continue to believe that repeated violations of these treaties is prima facie evidence of a willingness to ignore rules and conventions, and that the only way to head off such callous disregard is by direct action.
Such action need not be military, but today we stand with a civilian diplomatic corps that is crippled by vacancies, resignations, and the steady exit of experienced personnel who cannot be replaced easily. More malfeasance by this administration - disabling our diplomatic corps is as treasonous as disarming our military in the face of imminent conflict.
Arguments about the attack divide along two lines: it's legal/illegal; it's effective/ineffective. I think that, whether or not the missiles last year hit their target, there's generally good evidence that the strike and attention were effective. After that reprisal there were no reported chemical attacks until a few months ago, during which lower-level/smaller-scale attacks were sometimes reported but didn't generate a lot of international attention. There are also credible reports (from the UN, as reported here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/north-korea-link-to-syrias-chemical-weapons-is-unsurprising.html) that Syria had to turn to outside sources for help with its chemical weapons program. I think this argues that Assad was at minimum deterred and that the native industry was hampered to such a degree as to require outside assistance. Therefore, I generally dismiss arguments that our actions both diplomatic and military - were not effective.
I believe they were - what failed was our ability to formulate an ongoing plan to rein in a rogue dictator bent on slaughtering his own people. One-off actions are great for symbols and terrible as a governing policy. We've had no policy, no strategy for this conflict beyond "fight ISIS" - whatever that means - and it shows. One-off actions quiet things for a time but do nothing to defuse the underlying problem.
The question of whether or not they were legal is a lot harder to dispose. The Constitution clearly designates war-declaring power to Congress (Article I, Section 8). By contrast the President is designated (Article 2, Section 2) to be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces and is given the power to "make" war. Contemporaneous records show that the Framers intended the military to remain under civilian control and up through Korea this system worked pretty well.
In the aftermath of that and Vietnam, the 1973 War Powers Act gave the President a 60-day window in which to seek authorization. Lots of Constitutional scholars argue this itself is unconstitutional and the issue has never been finally decided. Generally, Presidents explained themselves and sometimes sought post-facto authorization from Congress. Then in 2001, the AUMF was passed, nominally to give the President authority to act against those responsible for the September 11th attacks and those associated. The AUMF has been cited as authorization for a wide variety of things. People argue that it's beyond belief the AUMF could legitimize action against ISIS, an organization that had nothing to do with the September 11th actions because it didn't even exist then. Regardless of which side you fall on that debate, it's pretty clear that acting against Assad is outside the AUMF.
By what authority, then, could the President's actions be justified? The original separation of war-making from war-declaring was intended to allow the armed forces to respond to immediate threats, or actions already in progress. It's hard to argue that Assad's use of chemical weapons on rebels in his country posed a threat to anyone else... except maybe it did.
It's pretty clear that Israel saw those weapons as a threat. They went in directly after the attack and took out materiele before it could be moved. The US and Israel have a number of joint defense agreements and the President could argue that those justify taking action. These agreements don't rise to the level of collective defense that NATO's founding Article 5 states, but it's not something to discount.
Finally, I think there are clues in who we went in with. Britain participated in the attack and they have been insistent that the use of high-grade military nerve agents on British soil (to attempt to assassinate a former Soviet agent and his daughter) was an attack on them as a sovereign state. I find it hard to argue with a logic that says "unchecked use of chemical weapons means our citizens are (more) at risk."
A final argument, which the French seem to be making (and Macron seems to want credit for convincing Trump to pull the trigger this time) is that the Chemical Weapons Convention requires enforcement. Unfortunately, the plain language of the treaty as I read it says that member states are responsible for enforcement "within their jurisdiction". The counter-argument to that is that if the jurisdictional parties will not enforce the treaty then other signatories have a duty to do so, even if that duty is not spelled out in the CWC.
This argument is remarkably similar to arguments made in the recent past about US military action, to bring this full circle. In particular, as I've argued several times, the US Congress has effectively abdicated its responsibility by refusing to debate resolutions on the use of force requested by presidents Bush and Obama. If Congress had taken up such resolutions and definitively voted them down I think the picture would be clearer - Congress would have said, explicitly, no. But where Congress is silent, it's reasonable to ask whether the President's Article 2 powers permit him to act, particularly in concert with other nations that feel there is a clear and present danger.
I think I understand the arguments for and against and I wish I felt it was easy to state a clear position but each lap around this mental track just further convinces me there is no easy answer. I can understand each side's position without agreeing to it, and I can become more convinced that those who think there's an obvious easy answer are wrong. But that's it, so far.
As I've been saying for years, I believe we (America) are utterly failing at our moral and international responsibilities to aid refugees in the neighboring countries. Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have all taken in millions of people and need more aid to serve them. Basic needs such as housing, food/water, sanitation, and healthcare evolve into longer-term needs like schooling, training, resettlement, reunification of families, etc. as the war drags on. None of this is cheap, but we have good relationships and reliable supply lines in all three countries. We should be doing MUCH more on the edges of the conflict.
Add to this the utterly reprehensible policies of this administration toward refugees. Those who leave the conflict zone deserve safe places to resettle until they can go home. They deserve compassionate care, over years, to rebuild lives shattered by war. They deserve a chance to join families living abroad, and a chance to bring their loved ones to live with them.
I stand by claims I made last year: I support action to remove weapons of war from battle zones, be that destroying aircraft, weapons stockpiles, or manufacturing facilities. I also continue to believe that chemical weapons are sufficiently different from other weapons - extra horrible - that we made special treaties to govern them and agreements not to use them. I continue to believe that repeated violations of these treaties is prima facie evidence of a willingness to ignore rules and conventions, and that the only way to head off such callous disregard is by direct action.
Such action need not be military, but today we stand with a civilian diplomatic corps that is crippled by vacancies, resignations, and the steady exit of experienced personnel who cannot be replaced easily. More malfeasance by this administration - disabling our diplomatic corps is as treasonous as disarming our military in the face of imminent conflict.
Arguments about the attack divide along two lines: it's legal/illegal; it's effective/ineffective. I think that, whether or not the missiles last year hit their target, there's generally good evidence that the strike and attention were effective. After that reprisal there were no reported chemical attacks until a few months ago, during which lower-level/smaller-scale attacks were sometimes reported but didn't generate a lot of international attention. There are also credible reports (from the UN, as reported here: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/north-korea-link-to-syrias-chemical-weapons-is-unsurprising.html) that Syria had to turn to outside sources for help with its chemical weapons program. I think this argues that Assad was at minimum deterred and that the native industry was hampered to such a degree as to require outside assistance. Therefore, I generally dismiss arguments that our actions both diplomatic and military - were not effective.
I believe they were - what failed was our ability to formulate an ongoing plan to rein in a rogue dictator bent on slaughtering his own people. One-off actions are great for symbols and terrible as a governing policy. We've had no policy, no strategy for this conflict beyond "fight ISIS" - whatever that means - and it shows. One-off actions quiet things for a time but do nothing to defuse the underlying problem.
The question of whether or not they were legal is a lot harder to dispose. The Constitution clearly designates war-declaring power to Congress (Article I, Section 8). By contrast the President is designated (Article 2, Section 2) to be the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces and is given the power to "make" war. Contemporaneous records show that the Framers intended the military to remain under civilian control and up through Korea this system worked pretty well.
In the aftermath of that and Vietnam, the 1973 War Powers Act gave the President a 60-day window in which to seek authorization. Lots of Constitutional scholars argue this itself is unconstitutional and the issue has never been finally decided. Generally, Presidents explained themselves and sometimes sought post-facto authorization from Congress. Then in 2001, the AUMF was passed, nominally to give the President authority to act against those responsible for the September 11th attacks and those associated. The AUMF has been cited as authorization for a wide variety of things. People argue that it's beyond belief the AUMF could legitimize action against ISIS, an organization that had nothing to do with the September 11th actions because it didn't even exist then. Regardless of which side you fall on that debate, it's pretty clear that acting against Assad is outside the AUMF.
By what authority, then, could the President's actions be justified? The original separation of war-making from war-declaring was intended to allow the armed forces to respond to immediate threats, or actions already in progress. It's hard to argue that Assad's use of chemical weapons on rebels in his country posed a threat to anyone else... except maybe it did.
It's pretty clear that Israel saw those weapons as a threat. They went in directly after the attack and took out materiele before it could be moved. The US and Israel have a number of joint defense agreements and the President could argue that those justify taking action. These agreements don't rise to the level of collective defense that NATO's founding Article 5 states, but it's not something to discount.
Finally, I think there are clues in who we went in with. Britain participated in the attack and they have been insistent that the use of high-grade military nerve agents on British soil (to attempt to assassinate a former Soviet agent and his daughter) was an attack on them as a sovereign state. I find it hard to argue with a logic that says "unchecked use of chemical weapons means our citizens are (more) at risk."
A final argument, which the French seem to be making (and Macron seems to want credit for convincing Trump to pull the trigger this time) is that the Chemical Weapons Convention requires enforcement. Unfortunately, the plain language of the treaty as I read it says that member states are responsible for enforcement "within their jurisdiction". The counter-argument to that is that if the jurisdictional parties will not enforce the treaty then other signatories have a duty to do so, even if that duty is not spelled out in the CWC.
This argument is remarkably similar to arguments made in the recent past about US military action, to bring this full circle. In particular, as I've argued several times, the US Congress has effectively abdicated its responsibility by refusing to debate resolutions on the use of force requested by presidents Bush and Obama. If Congress had taken up such resolutions and definitively voted them down I think the picture would be clearer - Congress would have said, explicitly, no. But where Congress is silent, it's reasonable to ask whether the President's Article 2 powers permit him to act, particularly in concert with other nations that feel there is a clear and present danger.
I think I understand the arguments for and against and I wish I felt it was easy to state a clear position but each lap around this mental track just further convinces me there is no easy answer. I can understand each side's position without agreeing to it, and I can become more convinced that those who think there's an obvious easy answer are wrong. But that's it, so far.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-17 09:45 am (UTC)(I truly don't mean to Clif Notes your post. This is just one of those things that makes me want to bonk my head against the nearest and hardest wall.)
no subject
Date: 2018-04-17 06:20 pm (UTC)However, I'm not sure what you mean by "deserve" in this case.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-18 07:21 pm (UTC)Oh! I wanted to say, before it slipped from my mind, thank you for writing about these sorts of things.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-19 03:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-19 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-04-19 01:36 pm (UTC)I do believe in the "make sure your own mask is firmly in place first" doctrine, and compassion fatigue is a real thing, as is the need to maintain healthy boundaries. I see these principles as compatible with our human compassionate obligations.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-20 01:21 pm (UTC)Admittedly, it's easy to ignore those sorts of comments coming from my family online. Fartbook is prime for people taking a stand on a topic and feeling as though they are completely right, although the only people that have replied are in the same social cul-de-sac as them.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-20 05:57 pm (UTC)I find the sputtering and backpedaling amusing much of the time.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-17 02:26 pm (UTC)I'll comment only that I find myself saying the same thing I said so many times when Obama was president --- I find myself opposing a lot of policies that I would have supported if they'd been implemented by a president whose motives and/or competence I had more faith in. Partly this is because my support for any policy is partly predicated on faith that it's been thought through, and patly this is because any policy is likely to have unintended consequences, to which I hope the president will be able to respond thoughtfully and humanely. So if Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz had ordered these strikes, I'd be giving him all the benefit of the doubt, but with Trump I find myself thinking that anything he does is probably best not done.
Your analysis is obviously deeper and more nuanced than mine. I'm glad to have read it.
no subject
Date: 2018-04-17 06:24 pm (UTC)I also try to be mindful of the reality that every president in my lifetime has wrestled with this problem, regardless of political party or affiliation, and none has come away with a convincing case.