Syria: President Obama’s Rwanda

Protests in Syria on March 26th, 2011 (Retrieved February 26th, 2014. Image License: Attribution, Some Rights Reserved).

This is hard for me to write. It is rare for an issue to offend literally every sensibility I have, to find an issue that enrages me to the very core of my being. This is one such issue. The civil war in Syria is a wildfire, only instead of firefighters trying to stop it they stand back wondering what to do. The Obama administration has been wrong in virtually every way possible when it comes to Syria and it has cost over 100,000 lives and has displaced over 4 million people. If nothing is done Syria will pull Lebanon, and Iraq into its hellish civil war. Jordan, Iran, Turkey, Israel, and the Gulf states will begin picking sides (some have already done so).

A brief timeline.

• It began March 15, 2011, with a protest against the Assad regime, it was called a Day of Rage. It began to protest some youths who were being held and a peaceful protest was held to support their release.

• Three days later security forces open fire at a protest  where an unknown number of activists are killed. This causes protests to spread all over the country.

• April 26, 2011, thousands of soldiers backed by tanks and snipers open fire on civilians in Daraa and two other locations, according to witnesses. Armed security agents conduct house-to-house sweeps. Neighborhoods are sectioned off and checkpoints are erected. Electricity, water and cellphone services are cut. At least 11 people are killed and 14 others lay in the streets, either dead or gravely wounded.

• June 7, 2011, details emerge of a mutiny by Syrian soldiers in the northern town of Jisr al-Shughour, where 120 troops were killed, according to the government. This is the first recorded act of violence against the regime, keep in mind it took 4 months of protesters being slaughtered in the streets before they started to fight back. Imagine that, marching against tanks, snipers and machine gun nests, and taking it for four months. Aside from sanctions and tough talk the United States did nothing.

For a more detailed and in depth timeline, Politico has constructed one for you view here.

The earliest known supply of weapons being sent to the Syrian free army is September 12, 2013. The rebels say they have yet to receive these weapons. Keep in mind that since the uprising began in Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have been arming, reinforcing, and aiding the Assad regime from the very beginning, and that is not even including the aid Russia is giving the Assad regime. It is unclear when but sometime in early 2012 foreign fighters began streaming into the country. They lacked the nobility of the Syrian free army who was attempting to make a Democratic state for all Syrians. These new rebel groups have coalesced around two groups, Al-Nusra, and the Islamic State of the Leviant (I.S.I.S.). Both are radical Sunni fundamentalists who wish to force Sharia law on well, everyone. Al-Nusra is violent and responsible for multiple atrocities, The I.S.I.S. is so bloodthirsty that even Al-Qaeda wants nothing to do with them and has condemned them.

So, who is the Assad regime? Before I answer this, here’s some background on Syria. The Assad family has ruled Syria for over 40 years now and they make up a religious minority called the Alawites, who are closely related to the Shia. The Alawite minority makes up 12% of the population Sunni’s make up over 60%. The Assad regime is closely allied to Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. It has a population of 21 million people and is almost twice the size of the state of Tennessee. The Assad regime is ruled by Bashar Al-Assad who has been in power since his father died on June 10, 2000. His government is alleged to have ordered assassinations all over the world and is a known supporter of terrorists organizations. During the war in Iraq it was widely believed that his government encouraged the pipeline of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, through Syria. This was all before the Syrian uprising when he started slaughtering his own people.

I told you this just to put into context the scale of how bad the situation is, and of how little this government, the United States government, has done to stop it. I could talk about the two peace conferences the U.S. has helped start, or the President’s bungling of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but those don’t really matter. I will tell you what does. Snipers use pregnant women as target practice, body parts are shot off of children just to see if a sniper could make the shot. When some of the more violent rebel groups take over a town they drag random men into the street and use a machete to hack off body parts until they are dead. Whole towns of Christians have been executed, whole neighborhoods demolished, there are unconfirmed reports of children becoming soldiers, some as young as 12.

These atrocities lead into another compounding problem about people in the Middle East, which is that the extended family is very important, and extends over borders. A family member killed by group A will cause the whole family to hate group A. It is also why whole communities tend to be destroyed, because a cycle of violence has been started and will demand blood for blood. It will consume a generation of Syrians and it will not stop at borders it will build and grow consuming all nations around it. When I see a growing wildfire my first instinct is to run, but that is the wrong instinct, a plan must be made to fight it at some point, otherwise it will consume you as well.

At one point direct intervention by the United States would have helped this situation, but that time has passed and we watched as the flames of Syria consumed her children and we shrugged our shoulders and did nothing. Now those flames lick at the heels of Lebanon and Iraq, by all accounts this administration will once again shrug its shoulders and do nothing. To be fair the President does have several valid reasons for not intervening. The first being that he was elected on an anti-war platform and many people on the left would see any intervention in Syria as a betrayal of that position. He has also been attacked from the right in this country for attempting to aid the Syrian free army. These attacks are ignorant and incredibly foolish, and only reveals their astounding level of ignorance on Syria. The President himself has many reservations about any intervention, as has been shown by is complete unwillingness to do anything of substance on the issue. The worst part is there are many options to help contain this.

First we must begin a massive effort to arm and train the Lebanese army, if we do this they will be able to control Lebanon, enforce the will of a democratically elected government in Lebanon and most importantly keep the various Sunni militias and Hezbollah from fighting in its country. By doing this we support a democratic government and help the people of Syria by cutting off a huge pipeline of weapons and foreign fighters. Next we help train and pressure the Nouri Al-Maliki government in Iraq. Our inaction over the last three years have pushed him into an informal alliance with Iran, and the Assad regime. This has happened partially because of Iraq’s instability and Maliki’s heavy handed tactics, but with a power and impartial broker it would be very possible to bring the Sunni and Shia factions back to the table and help Iraq heal, while simultaneously creating a bulwark from spreading chaos and slaughter from Syria. Then we begin arming and training the Syrian Free Army, really arming and training them. Not saying one thing and doing another like this administration has done with respect to Syria. These are not good options but they are better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Our other option is we do nothing and watch as the middle east eats itself alive. We will have three failed states (Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria) in the middle of the crossroads of the world, oil prices will spike, unrest will spread, and Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia will become increasingly involved. Rebel and terrorist groups will target these respective governments and some will send troops in. What happens when a terrorist group targets Israel? What happens If Saudi Arabia and Iran have a direct confrontation? I am willing to bet that things will spiral out of control, tensions will mount, regional powers will start picking sides, troops will encounter each other, and some 19 year old kid will make the tiniest of mistakes and God only knows what happens then. And please don’t forget that both Russia and the United States have very close ties to multiple countries in the region and either one or both could be drawn into a conflict. Unlike other humanitarian crises in the last 20 years this one has the potential to pull in multiple great powers including the United States. While inaction is tempting, it is not possible. Like a cancer the longer you ignore it the worse it will be.

I called this piece President Obama’s Rwanda, but that is an unfair criticism. Primarily because unlike Syria, Rwanda’s cyclone of violence did not risk starting a major war between great powers. If the humanitarian concerns fall on deaf ears, if the slaughter of the innocent does not prick your heart, then keep this in mind: there are over 1,700 fighters in Syria fighting for jihadi groups, all from Europe. Battle hardened Islamic fundamentalists who will take their skill of violence and mayhem to the next great enemy of the faith. If this sounds familiar look up Afghanistan, because it will be a harbinger of our future, and like the sands of Syria will be bathed in the blood of the innocent. It is unfair because at least inaction from an American President then did not get any Americans killed, you cannot say that about Syria, because one day this war will spread, and this Administration will be judged harshly. The World is watching and history is judging Mr. President.

Drone Strikes: Who’s to Blame?

MQ-9 Reaper (Image retrieved February 23rd, 2014. License: Public Domain. Image is property of USAF and US Federal Government)

The United States of America is at war against extreme Islamic fundamentalists all over the world. This is a point that should be remembered when we talk about drone strikes. Another point that should not be forgotten is the rule of Law, and that everyone, from lowly bloggers to high ranking U.S. officials should be held accountable. The United States government is currently considering action on a U.S. citizen, and by action I mean using a drone to blow him and his immediate surrounding to kingdom come. We at Willis and Law have decided to look at, and go over the legal, and practical reasons why the President of the United States can order a strike on an immediate threat to national security in light of mulling over a 5th strike against a U.S. Citizen. (cite)

The first thing we will talk about are the legal conditions for a drone strike. Two questions being asked here are: 1) Does the President have the authority to target members of Al-Qaeda for vaporization? 2) Does the President have the authority to target U.S. Citizens? The short answer to each question respectively is yes, and kind of. These questions revolve around the concepts of citizenship, treason, and legal definitions of lawful and unlawful civilians and combatants. Combatants, as it should be pointed out, may be those in leadership positions that in many instances aren’t actively engaged in combat, but provide leadership and logistical command. We won’t tackle the issue of what is citizenship, though for those who are interested you may look [here], and we’ll be tackling the moral justifications on a later date.

The long answer to those questions are that Congress authorized and empowered the President to take “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” via Section 2(a) of Public Law 107-40 which was passed on September 18th, 2001 through the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists with 97% of congressional approval.

Further legal justification can be found with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 107-243, amended WPR to give Bush authority), FISA, and the PATRIOT Act. Effectively, targeted killings have been occurring since 2002. [Conservatives have merit in pointing towards the fact that these laws have degraded Due Process – but entirely hypocritical in that they supported these laws to begin with. Same is true for Democrats. Current Conservative trends however seem to suggest that Obama has no authority – even though they technically gave him said authority in 2001…].

With respect to practicality and justification, Gary D. Solis, in The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War made a checklist, quoted below:

1)  There must be an international or non-international armed conflict in progress. [check]

2)  The victim must be a specific individual and must be targeted by reason of his activities in relation to the armed conflict. [check]

3)  The individual who has engaged directly in hostilities must be beyond a reasonable possibility of arrest. [check]

4)  Only a senior military commander representing the targeting state may authorize a targeted killing. [check]

5)  Victim must be directly participating in hostilities. [up for debate]

Here at Willis and Law, we believe that the first four criteria have been met. But one other important point was mentioned by Mr. Solis – there is a complete lack of law determining the scope and legality of targeted killing – unlike assassinations. The war on terror is and was a hasty and ill conceived notion. How do you declare war on an idea? Americans are fond of Wars on, poverty, drugs, terror, etc. We should stop clinging to this grandiose notion of ending terrorism and call this conflict what it really is. America attempting to wipe out a clear and immediate danger. With this in mind a clear legal definition is needed for what a terrorist organization really is. What is needed is an act of Congress to define what a terrorist organization, or at the very least to declare which organizations the United States has a kill or capture policy on.

It is Congress who gave the Office of the President the scope and ability to make decision with such phrases as: “necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons” among other such language used. Don’t fault the user – fault the giver. Rome didn’t fall into dictatorship because one person took it – it fell into dictatorship because one man was given the opportunity, who subsequently took the power. We don’t believe Obama to be a dictator, nor do we believe in this radical idea that he wants to be a dictator, but we are not naïve to believe that even he wouldn’t use powers granted to him in a conflict as vague as the War on Terror.

Indeed, Obama can be quoted as saying:

“Under new guidelines Obama mentioned in a speech last year – in an attempt to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign – lethal force must only be used “to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively.”

Now it should be said that the State Department does have a definition for a terrorist but this merely defines who are terrorists and can be changed by the Secretary of state at a word.

Still, these questions arose after the targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen, as well as Samir Khan (an Al Qaeda, and alleged American citizen), and al-Awlaki’s 16 year old son. However, there has been a matter of contention as to whether or not the 16-year old was a target, or just collateral damage, so effectively it’s a matter of whether or not it was okay to kill two U.S. Citizens that were aiding the enemy. (cite some updated sources on this).

Continuing however, al-Awlaki and Khan, based on the definitions of Lawful and Unlawful Combatants given in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (as well as the Geneva Conventions 3 and 4, and protocol I, Articles 50 and 51) – were enemies first, citizens last. Further, they would be in violation of U.S.C. Ch. 18, Sections 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason), 2384 (sedition), 2389 (recruiting for service against United States), 2390 (enlistment to serve against United States) and Article 3, Section 3 (treason by levying war).

Interestingly, however, terrorism and war are two distinctly different concepts, and the only reason that we can classify someone as levying war against us is through their allegiance to the enemy and our declaring war against them through an awkward means of actually declaring war against their host nations. Another question should be taken into consideration though, how is targeted killing any different than the military tactic of taking out leaders? It’s a strategic method of warfare that’s been used for a very long time – take out the commander and leader and watch the enemy force weaken, and spread out in confusion. As technology continues to evolve, more effective means will be found to complete this task.

There’s a very real legal justification that has been created for the special purposes of the War on Terror – this should be no surprise to anyone. There’s also a practical argument to be made to justify the use of drone strikes against specific enemy targets. Blaming Obama, and attempting to personify him as the ultimate culprit only amounts to a complete blame shift.  Nothing can be solved by this method, and only propagates our frustration with our elected officials. Congress has the ability to limit the President’s abilities, but since 2001 (similar to Rome), congress has given the president more and more authority when it relates to national security issues. This damages oversight, as a matter of fact, it attempts to rid the very idea of oversight . What should be done by Congress now, is not continue this façade of demanding legally documented justification, followed by legislation that would force the President to give these documents which he could easily avoid through a presidential order that’s a supported action of the Supreme Court.

If Congress has a problem with any of this it is one of the simplest things in the world to fix. Increase congressional oversight, define who can and cannot be a target. The constitution empowers Congress to define enemies of the state and if they do not like what the President is doing in this regard then FIX IT and stop whining about Executive overreach. That is, if members of Congress actually wanted to do something about it.

This does two things, it makes very clear what is legally justifiable. It gives Congress the ability to be more active in this process. It creates a much greater extent to oversight leading to – what one would hope – is a more responsible and justified action. And more strategically, it forces the President to use their legal reasoning if they reject the legislation – and it would be difficult to draft an executive order against that. Congress has an overwhelming amount of authority that they are NOT exercising, some of which they gave to the Office of the President –  a continuing pattern since the mid to late 1960’s, but became even more overwhelming – and vague – after 9/11.

The takeaway from this entire article, should be this point alone: Congress has yet to definitively narrow down a specific definition for what terrorism is. Without a clear cut definition, how can one possibly justify any actions? This point alone is awkwardly vacant from any discussion on the topic of drone strikes, as it pertains to national dialogue. Congress has the authority, to make specific, and proper legal definitions. If simply calling someone a terrorist is enough to be bombed, then there is a very real problem. This delves into the very issues, and absence of quality in our members of Congress to come up with such definitions for which justice hinges on.