Nine Reasons Why Bombing Syria Is Not an Act of Justice

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

If the U.S. unilaterally bombs Syria, it can’t possibly be an act of neutral justice in response to a chemical attack. Why not? Several reasons. (1) The U.S. has supported anti-Assad (anti-Syrian) rebel forces against Assad for several years. (2) The U.S. has not been a neutral presence in that region since 1919. Download the paper by John B. Quigley for a readable and brief summary of U.S. actions regarding Palestine and Israel. Quigley’s paper argues that the U.S. has repeatedly shunted aside considerations of justice for Palestinians in favor of its own aims, interests, and position of power in the world. (3) The U.S. has selected immediate violence as a response without taking the time to pursue other remedies. (4) The U.S. is threatening to act on incomplete information. (5) The existing framework of international law doesn’t allow for unilateral bombing by the U.S. or any other state. (6) Any attack may kill and wound innocent Syrians. (7) Any attack may result in escalating war in the region as a direct consequence. That is not just to the region’s inhabitants who would suffer. (8) The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s gas attacks on the Iranians. (9) U.S. ordinance includes weapons of mass destruction. It also includes weapons with chemical components like white phosphorous used in Fallujah.

12:38 pm on August 31, 2013
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts