Syria AUMF: Chemical Weapons and Other Issues

Former Senator Richard G. Lugar said the difference lay in the danger of proliferation. “We are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we are talking about chemical weapons in particular, which may be the greatest threat to our country of any security risk that we have, much more than another government, for example, or another nation because they can be used by terrorists, by very small groups,” he told the BBC. “The use of these weapons of mass destruction has got to concern us, and concern us to the point that we take action whenever any country crosses that line and uses these weapons as have the Syrians.”

The NYT does something that Obama and other members of Congress better  take care to do -- provide some explanation why chemical weapons particularly are considered a threat to international safety. Why a chemical weapons treaty being enforced is credibly applied even to a domestic dispute involving a misuse of chemicals as revenge for an affair. It is a product of history and its use (and the danger) against civilians:

While militaries find chemical weapons hard to control, given the vagaries of wind and weather, they can be effective against the unprepared, and especially deadly to unsuspecting civilians. “You just have to watch the videos from Syria from Aug. 21,” Mr. Heisbourg said. “This is killing people like cockroaches and using the same chemicals to do it.” 

Thousands of people were killed by machetes in Rwanda, he noted. “That’s gruesome,” Mr. Heisbourg said, “but the production and sale of machetes is not considered a threat to international security.”

The article notes our use of Agent Orange being deemed legally an defoliant, but even if it can be deemed criminal (though clear international law -- so clear that even if Syria is one of a handful that did not sign on, it should still be considered "customary" and binding -- might have came later*), there really isn't some "two wrongs make a right rule." See also the link fest supplied by a comment here (I once looked into the "white phosphorus" issue and recall it being hazy. War overall, including the unhealthy aspects of it, is hell -- duly noted too. Again, chemical weapons specifically have been deemed historically a problem.  Helping Saddam is old news as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, including in promotion of devil's bargains to balance Iran. Net, where does this get you? We aren't pure?  Great! Thanks for telling me everyone knows.)

The concern here is that the U.S. specifically has no clear authority (as compared by some things I read, genocide) to independent of U.N. action to enforce this sort of thing by military action.  I have noted this very problematic issue though also that some have suggested a realistic ability to act and if the act is accepted, in effect, change international law norms in the process. Also, the matter addresses the the national (and international security -- see NATO's comment here) implications.

There is a reason this in particular -- not each and every violation of international law or harm to civilians -- is being addressed in this way.  Also, if you read the Senate AUMF against Syria, there are various "whereas" clauses to explain why it is particularly in our interest to use force here. Personally, I still am not a supporter, finding use of military force something that we should use only as a last result, especially when it might be counterproductive or of limited value. In the long run, for instance, use of military force without getting U.N. authorization (realizing that Russia's veto makes it rather difficult here) is problematic in itself, if promotes other nations to violate international law.

Nonetheless, it is helpful to understand the logic of the intervention, avoiding (I have seen it) simplistic tropes. For instance, someone quoted Obama opposing regime change and "war"** against Iraq in 2002, but (he's getting ridiculed for it) Obama opposes a broad action here to do that sort of thing. It wouldn't be the first time that Obama got it from both ends though.  One thing cited is that there just is not enough evidence. The AUMF, however, cites the Arab League (Syria is a member) holding Syria responsible for usage of chemical weapons. It cites various provisions, even if Syria is not a signatory of the more recent treaty against chemical weapons, of it being in violation of international law. The overall threat of the regime and how this adds to the overall danger of the situation.

The authorization of force is targeted as a response to the usage of chemical weapons and protecting further misuse or leakage to rebel forces. But, realistically, the whole context matters here. The usage of chemical weapons in some other situation might not warrant military force given the balance of prudence. I doubt it is warranted here. Still, we should look at the logic of this specific situation. The use of force very well might have after-effects, including further destabilization of Syria, including its relations with Russia (one blogger noted  this as a sign Syria's government no longer will feel Russia is protecting them as much). This again makes it unwise. Others, however, are willing to take the risk since things are so bad already. Such a government, such unrest makes usage of chemical weapons that much more dangerous.

Obama's response has been criticized as half-cocked, but there are a mixture of interests here -- domestic (the use of force here is tangential enough to self-defense and so forth that congressional authorization is sound), international security/human rights tied to specific dangerous weapons (something Obama has been for overall, including working toward nuclear weapon security -- something, Valerie Plame, e.g., has worked on as well) and the regional security issue of Syria. This involves a mixture of legal and realpolitik.  Such things are messy and even if we oppose the specific choice here, we should be grow-up enough to realize it and not get all shocked that some of the lines here are hazy.

Whatever happens, "For Syria there is no safe, morally pure solution."

---

* All types of chemical "weapons" might be seen as illegitimate, including the gas chamber. 

** I realize that the Orwellian possibilities of avoiding the word "war" can get pretty bad, but this doesn't mean all uses of military force are legally or should be considered "war." The term has broad legal implications, which is one reason it is so often avoided, especially after WWII.  On a colloquial basis, I don't think the general public disagrees.

This doesn't mean a wrongful attack stops being an illicit "act of war" -- cf. a legitimate and illegitimate reprisal (authorized by Art. I separately from "war"). This provides a separate reason to obtain authorization of usage of force in let's say Libya.  Treaty obligations, e.g., very well might as a legal matter be open to change -- a treaty is equal to a duly passed domestic law for constitutional purposes.  But, Congress, not merely the executive, should do something like that generally speaking.