Crossing the Thin Red Line: U.S. prepared to intervene in Syria if diplomacy fails

Photos and slideshow by David Rozycki: The Signal.
DAVID ROZYCKI
THE SIGNAL
Approximately 100 people showed up at a Houston rally Aug. 31 against U.S. intervention in Syria.

The rally took place at the corner of Post Oak Boulevard and Westheimer Road near the Galleria. Attendees carried signs, gave speeches and chanted to explain why they are opposed to President Obama’s call for U.S. military action in Syria in response to alleged chemical weapon attacks on civilians by the Syrian government.

One of the organizers of the event, Shere Dore of Occupy Houston, remains skeptical of U.S. claims that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks. She believes rebels in Syria may have carried out the attacks.

“We know that mainstream media tends to be a little bit biased and I’m very skeptical to believe that it was Assad’s group,” Dore said. “Until the proof actually comes out, and I would trust independent media more than mainstream at this point, it could be either or.”

Across the street from where Dore and other protesters gathered, there was another group with a different viewpoint, calling for U.S. action in Syria. Omar Shishakly, an organizer with the group Texans For Free Syria believes the U.S. should strike Syria as soon as possible.

“We want peace, but to have peace in Syria we have to take the regime out,” Shishakly said. “The best way is to actually disable the air force that has been attacking civilians.”

On Houston street corners as well as in the World Court the debate about whether the U.S. should act against the Syrian government is ongoing.

President Obama has stated U.S. intervention in Syria is justified because of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, which violates international law under the 1925 Geneva Protocol. Last year, Obama said if the Assad regime started using chemical weapons, it would be a “red line.” Critics have said he painted himself into a corner with this statement, and this is why he felt the pressure to act on Syria.

Obama has since said he did not set the red line, the world did.

Last week, Obama announced possible diplomatic developments that would lead to Assad relinquishing Syria’s chemical weapons. He has asked Congress to postpone voting on the use of force in Syria while he pursues this new option and awaits results from the U.N. inspection.

Obama then stated his plans to keep the U.S. military ready to strike if diplomatic resolutions do not succeed.

The Assad government has repeatedly denied responsibility for the chemical attacks. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says that hair and blood samples collected by first responders in East Damascus have reported positive for Sarin gas. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has admitted that Syria possesses stockpiles of Sarin gas.

Critics of the U.S., including Russia and China, are asking how the evidence was collected. They want to know how the chain of custody of the evidence was handled and which laboratories tested the samples. For many, the false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have called U.S. credibility into question.

The U.N. Security Council will not approve U.S. military intervention in Syria while its independent investigation is ongoing. Russia and China oppose any U.S. military action in Syria, and China has used its veto power on the

U.N. Security Council twice to support the Assad regime. Russia has also repeatedly blocked U.N. resolutions targeting the regime. Without Security Council approval, intervention in Syria would be unlawful under the U.N. Charter.

The U.S. has precedents for military action without U.N. approval. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not approved by the U.N. The U.S. justified the invasion by claiming it needed to invade Iraq for self-defense against the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq possessed. The weapons were never found.

The U.S. is claiming self-defense again as partial justification for a strike against Syria because their stockpiles of chemical weapons could be used against the U.S. in the future. Around the world, eight nations have stockpiles of chemical weapons. The U.S. is one of them. The other countries that have stockpiles are India, Iraq, Japan, Russia, Libya, North Korea and Syria. In cases of crimes against humanity, which include chemical attacks against civilians, the U.S. could act under the Responsibility to Protect initiative, which has been approved by U.N. member states.

Responsibility to Protect is an international norm and not a law. It states that nations can intervene in the affairs of other nations in cases of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide. Obama has not cited the Responsibility to Protect initiative as justification for U.S. intervention in Syria.

Obama has asked for congressional approval to intervene in Syria, but has also stated publicly that he does not need it in order to order a military attack. Under the U.S. Constitution the president is the commander in chief, but only Congress can declare war. However, there are precedents for U.S. presidents to act without congressional approval.

In the past three decades, U.S. presidents have ordered U.S. armed forces into action in cases where U.S. lives were in danger and on missions of rescue and goodwill. U.S. presidents have sent troops to Panama, Somalia, and Bosnia, among other countries, without congressional approval.

Initially the president called for limited punitive strikes against government targets in Syria. These targets do not include chemical weapon stockpiles. Obama has since said any attack would be part of a broader strategy to support rebel forces and encourage the Syrian people to free themselves from Assad’s dictatorship.

Obama says the U.S. will send a message to the world that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable by striking Syria. Critics counter that air strikes will have little effect on the course of the civil war in Syria, and could unintentionally kill more innocent civilians and garner public support for Assad’s regime.

Currently more than two million Syrians have fled the country and are now refugees.

“I am not in a position to speculate about the impact of military strikes, just to say we are prepared in case there are even more people fleeing across borders as a result,” said Melissa Fleming, Head of Communications with the U.N. Refugee Agency in Geneva.

In the past, U.S. attitudes about chemical weapons have not always been outrage. Articles published in the The Washington Post discuss how during the 1980s Iraq-Iran war, the U.S. sold materials to Iraq that they then used to produce chemical weapons launched against Iran, and Kurdish civilians in 1988. The U.S. did not intervene when its former ally used chemical weapons against its own people, but did use the chemical attacks as justification for the war in Iraq decades later.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. forces used the chemical weapon Agent Orange, a toxic chemical herbicide. Agent Orange not only killed plants, it also killed millions of people and animals. Approximately 400,000 children in Vietnam were born with birth defects due to exposure to Agent Orange. U.S. soldiers were exposed to Agent Orange as well. The U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs has received disability claims from approximately 40,000 soldiers exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

 

Video by David Rozycki: The Signal.