I prepared this analysis to outline to my Senators and Representative the reasons why it is imperative that they oppose the President’s request for authorization to stage armed attacks in the country of Syria. I urged Senator Barbara Mikulski, Senator Ben Cardin and Representative Chris Van Hollen to insist on full public hearings on the proposal before any Congressional vote, and to actively oppose any military action in Syria not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council.

The following analysis is of points which are relevant to the President’s proposal. The first two points alone demonstrate that any Member of Congress voting for the action is violating his or her oath to support the Constitution of the United States. The others are not essential therefore to making a decision, but are additional factors.

1. The government of Syria has not attacked the United States. While the Administration has made no claim of such an attack, this point remains critical because it is the only basis provided in the United Nations Charter, which as a treaty ratified by the U.S. is part of the supreme law of the land, for a nation (or group of nations) to take military action against another nation except as part of an action authorized by the United National Security Council. The relevant language is in Article 51 of the Charter: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
2. The proposed action would constitute international vigilante action. The only body authorized to respond militarily to violation of “international norms” is the United Nations Security Council. This is clear in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. If I am enraged by a crime committed by one person against another, and fear the justice system will not appropriately respond to the crime and therefore take it upon myself (alone or with others) to violently assault the perpetrator to hold him “accountable” for his crime, such action is considered illegal vigilante action and I (and anyone else who joined with me) may be held criminally liable for the assault. That the person assaulted may indeed be guilty of the crime is not a valid defense to the criminal charges against me. What President Obama proposes is exactly the same thing on an international scale. It would be a vigilante action by those not legally authorized to punish the offender. The idea of flagrantly violating international norms ostensibly to enforce international norms should be viewed as obviously flawed.
3. The proposed action would justify a Syrian attack against the U.S. Should the U.S. attack Syria apart from a UN Security Council action, the government of Syria would be entitled under Article 51 of the UN Charter to take military action against the U.S. in response. Do we really want this?
4. We do not have clean hands. The U.S. engaged in chemical warfare in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004, causing extensive harm to civilians both immediately and in the years since. A recent study, Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009, by Doctors Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi concludes that this caused a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects. See news story on the study. Using the Administration’s rationale, another country would be justified in staging a military attack against the U.S. to hold us “accountable” for that violation of “international norms.” Do we really want to open that can of worms?
5. The action would almost certainly cause casualties of innocent civilians. Cruise missiles are not precise weapons which can discriminate between combatants and civilians. Civilian casualties are almost certain. Their blood would be on our hands.
6. Military action would inflame an already tragic situation. Foreign military action would inject yet a new source of violence in a country plagued by violence from various armed groups. Direct outside military intervention could result in other countries and non-state armed groups responding by taking military action in Syria, against U.S. ally Israel and against other nations. Some observers fear it could escalate into World War III. We can not know in advance how severe these consequences would be, but we should be aware that we would be stirring up a hornet’s nest.
7. The underlying facts are in question. There are conflicting reports on the cause of the chemical weapons incident. The Administration has not publicly released the evidence supporting its case. Reporters on the ground have found evidence of a very different scenario. See the analysis by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting of these two very different accounts of the incident. We need to be wary of self-serving explanations by the Administration, particularly in view of the history of an almost completely false story being told prior to the U.S. attack against Iraq. Among the questionable elements in the Administration’s story is the use of the propaganda technique of inserting irrelevant facts to try to cover up the lack of key evidence. The Administration points to a rocket attack by Syrian forces 90 minutes before the incident, but doesn’t show its relevance to its argument. Since this attack did not occur at the time of the incident, presumably it involved conventional explosives. It appears to be a smokescreen to try to hide the lack of evidence of a Syrian attack at the tie of the incident. If U.S. intelligence allows us to pinpoint Syrian attacks, why can’t the Administration confirm an attack at the time of the chemical weapons incident?

-Bill Samuel, September 2, 2013

I hereby authorize any person or group to reproduce or link to this post in whole or in part without further permission from me. I request that those reproducing all or a substantial part of the post appropriately credit the source. -Bill Samuel