 |
| Pres. Donald Trump announces U.S. attack on Syria, April 6, 2017 |
Peaceworks
is deeply troubled by the escalating violence in Syria. We condemn the use of
chemical weapons—illegal under international law—and, likewise, condemn
unilateral U.S. military action such as the cruise missile attack ordered by
Donald Trump on April 6. Below is a statement that outlines some of our key
concerns:
A
Few Key Points RE: Trump’s Attack on the Syrian Military:
1)
The rationale for this attack is the allegation of use of chemical weapons by President
Assad’s government. While it is certainly possible, and perhaps probable, that
the Syrian military has used illegal chemical weapons, there has been no
evidence presented proving this the case. In fact, there is a plausible
alternative explanation. This horrible incident, therefore, cannot be simply assumed
to be the work of the Syrian military and it is incumbent upon those seeking to
address this crime to seek out evidence first. Certainly this would be required
prior to taking lethal military action.
2)
Even if one assumes, without evidence, that this crime was the work of Syrian
government forces, that does not legitimize a unilateral U.S. attack on a
Syrian airbase.
First
of all, it is illegal, under international law, to launch a military attack on
a sovereign state except in an act of self-defense or when authorized by the
United Nations Security Council. Neither criterion has been met, and, thus, the
action ordered by President Trump is a clear violation of international law.
Additionally,
as Congress has not declared war or authorized this military action, and the
administration has not even asked for Congressional authorization, the attack
Trump ordered is an unconstitutional use of military force. By attacking Syrian
forces for the first time in the more than six-year old civil war, Donald Trump
has initiated war on another nation without either a declaration of war or a
Congressional resolution authorizing said use of force.
3)
Making war on Syria is fraught with high-stakes risks. The most obvious is the
possibility of military confrontation with the Russians, who are allied with
the Syrian government and have military forces on the ground in, and in the air
over, Syria. In a worst case scenario, this could even lead to the use of
nuclear weapons.
It
is being reported, in the wake of the U.S. attack, that Russia is suspending a
deconfliction agreement that was designed to avoid accidental military
confrontations between the two nuclear-armed superpowers. They also reportedly
are beefing up air defenses in Syria, which increases the chances of U.S.
aircraft being shot down. This is just one of many scenarios that could lead to
a broader conflict.
The
U.S. also has troops operating on the ground in Syria as part of a military
campaign against the so-called Islamic State. These troops are now in harm’s
way not only from ISIS forces but potentially from Syrian military or
government-allied paramilitary forces. Should such actions occur, or even be
alleged, it could lead to a wider, more deadly conflict.
It
has also been reported that Syria has threatened that, if U.S. attacks
continue, they will launch SCUD missiles against Israel. While hopefully this
will not happen, a regional war in the Middle East is the last thing the world
needs right now. Further, U.S. aggression against the Syrian military may be
responded to by Syria’s regional allies, including Iran and Hezbollah.
The
American attack also reinforces the perception of our country as both a bully
prone to attacking smaller and weaker nations, and an anti-Muslim power; one
that denies Syrian war refugees any shelter, and even attempts to prohibit any Syrians
(and people from five other predominantly Muslim nations) from entering the
country, while dropping bombs and killing Syrians. Another likely result,
therefore, is increased recruitment by anti-western groups and more incidents
of terrorism around the world, including, potentially, here in the United
States.
4)
The U.S. military attack is a clear setback to diplomatic efforts to resolve
the conflict. While opposition groups have fought for more than six years to
militarily unseat President Assad, they have been unsuccessful. With little to
no chance of achieving a military victory, it was hoped that the opposition
groups would come to the table and negotiate a settlement with the government.
Trump’s attack on Assad’s military, however, is likely to only increase the
intransigence of the opposition groups, reigniting hopes of a military triumph
with U.S. assistance. This is likely to prolong the conflict, which has already
cost hundreds of thousands of Syrian lives and made refugees of many millions.
In
conclusion, rather than launching 59 cruise missiles, our government should
have taken steps to see that a thorough and impartial investigation of the
apparent chemical incident was accomplished. This, if it did lead to the
conclusion that Assad’s military was the perpetrator, would allow for action to
proceed via the International Criminal Court, charging those responsible with a
war crime. It is essential to recognize, however, that, at least at the moment,
evidence regarding even the nature of the incident, let alone culpability, has
not been obtained, or at least made public.
Further,
President Trump’s illegal use of military force is likely to lead to more, not
less, death and destruction; to prolong an already devastating conflict and to increase
the risk of a significantly expanded conflict. And, to allow the President to
launch such an unauthorized attack, without significant public pushback,
threatens the already weak constitutional checks and balances on the unlimited
use of military force by the chief executive, undermining our democracy.
 |
| Cruise missiles being launch from the USS Porter, April 6, 2017. |
