Potential Use of Force in Syria

Potential Use of Force in Syria

Potential Use of Force in Syria in 2013

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Potential Use of Force in Syria: After the August 21, 2013 chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government against its own people, the Obama administration stated that it would consider using force to deter future chemical weapons attacks and to degrade Syria's chemical weapons program. On August 31, 2013, President Obama announced that he would seek congressional authorization for such a use of force in Syria. President Obama's statement is excerpted below and available at (President's Subdomain) whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/08/31/statement-president-syria. Secretary Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 3, 2013 in support of the authorization of the use of military force in Syria is available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/09/212603.htm. Secretary Kerry's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on September 4, 2013 is available at (Secretary of State website) state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/09/213787.htm. As discussed in Chapter 19.F.1, Syria agreed to a proposed framework for eliminating its chemical weapons program in September and the U.S. did not take military action.

Some Aspects of Potential Use of Force in Syria

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I'm confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

Developments

Our military has positioned assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive; it will be effective tomorrow, or next week, or one month from now. And I'm prepared to give that order.

Details

But having made my decision as Commander-in-Chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I'm also mindful that I'm the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And that's why I've made a second decision: I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.

More

Over the last several days, we've heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard. I absolutely agree. So this morning, I spoke with all four congressional leaders, and they've agreed to schedule a debate and then a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session.

More

In the coming days, my administration stands ready to provide every member with the information they need to understand what happened in Syria and why it has such profound implications for America's national security. And all of us should be accountable as we move forward, and that can only be accomplished with a vote.

Potential Use of Force in Syria in 2013 (Continuation)

United States views on international law [1] in relation to Potential Use of Force in Syria: I'm confident in the case our government has made without waiting for U.N. inspectors. I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable. As a consequence, many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the Prime Minister supported taking action.

More about Potential Use of Force in Syria

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. …

Development

A country faces few decisions as grave as using military force, even when that force is limited. I respect the views of those who call for caution, particularly as our country emerges from a time of war that I was elected in part to end. But if we really do want to turn away from taking appropriate action in the face of such an unspeakable outrage, then we must acknowledge the costs of doing nothing.

Details

Here's my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

More

Make no mistake—this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?

Resources

Notes

  1. Potential Use of Force in Syria in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law

Resources

Notes

  1. Potential Use of Force in Syria in the Digest of United States Practice in International Law

Posted

in

,

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *