http://news.antiwar.com/2013/07/15/as-rebel-infighting-surges-where-does-syrias-civil-war-stand/
But where does that leave the Syrian Civil War? The move seems to have pleased US officials, who weren’t comfortable with the FSA’s fighting alongside al-Qaeda, but without them, their effectiveness is questionable at best.
How the administration answered criticisms of its plan to arm rebels, which came under criticism for getting the US involved in an open-ended civil war and potential having the arms end up in the hands of al-Qaeda fighters, is unclear.
Though Israeli officials insist they’re not mad, they say they are puzzled by the leaks and aren’t clear whether the agenda is pro-intervention or anti-intervention, though they’re sure it’s one or the other.
As Rebel Infighting Surges, Where Does Syria’s Civil War Stand?
FSA Seeks Sharia Court Ruling Against al-Qaeda
by Jason Ditz, July 15, 2013
Weekend fighting in Aleppo Province left no doubt about the “declaration of war” by the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) against a faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it blamed for assassinating one of its leaders.
But where does that leave the Syrian Civil War? The move seems to have pleased US officials, who weren’t comfortable with the FSA’s fighting alongside al-Qaeda, but without them, their effectiveness is questionable at best.
It’s not even the FSA cutting al-Qaeda loose, but getting into direct conflicts with them, and in some places, the fighting is going to be rebel vs. rebel with the Assad government eagerly waiting to pick up the pieces.
In the interim the FSA seems to be holding out hope to sideline al-Qaeda by calling on Sharia courts to rule on the assassination, and order the assassin handed over. That seems extremely unlikely, and is likely to just further the divide between secular and Islamist fighters.
And will the US arm syrian rebels despite that apparently being illegal ?
Obama Lawyers Said Arming Syrian Rebels Would Be Illegal, Prompt War
John Glaser, July 15, 2013
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that legal advisers to President Obama have warned him since the beginning that aiding the Syrian rebels probably violated international law and risked a direct conflict with the Assad regime.
Members of the so-called Lawyers Group of top legal advisers from across the administration argued that Mr. Obama risked violating international law and giving Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the legal grounds—and motivation—to retaliate against Americans, said current and former officials.The group’s arguments in part help explain why the White House agonized over Syria intervention and why Mr. Obama eventually opted to provide military aid to the rebels covertly through the Central Intelligence Agency, to help mitigate the legal risks and keep the U.S.’s profile low.
Two things are important here. First, this is a case in point for anyone who wonders whether the federal government is guided by the rule of law or operates on the basis of perceived interests. As can be consistently demonstrated throughout U.S. history, even if it’s illegal, the Executive Branch (which has usurped essentially all of the governments war-making powers) will still do it if they want to.
The second important thing to note is something I’ve argued before – namely that the government keeps secret those policies that would otherwise be subject to the law. As in the drone war, the administration knew very well that some judge could find what they’re doing to be criminal. Therefore, the administration classifies the program and blocks any attempt at judicial scrutiny on the basis of national security.
According to the WSJ, Obama’s lawyers were able to exploit what they saw as a loophole. Obama recently announced plans to begin direct arming of the Syrian rebels (as opposed to merely indirect arming, through Saudi Arabia and Qatar). The WSJ reveals what was behind that decision, explaining that Obama’s lawyers decided to exploit what they view as a loophole, taking the position that the aid would be acceptable under domestic U.S. law but not international law.
But for a long time this group of lawyers “parr[ied] calls for more assertive U.S. action by citing the risks of skirting international law, triggering a shooting war and setting legal precedents that could be cited by other countries, such as Russia and China.”
WSJ continues:
Some of the lawyers involved were uncomfortable with what they saw as a policy that could be seen as similar to the Reagan administration’s backing of Nicaragua’s Contra guerrillas in the 1980s.Some of them cited a 1986 decision from the International Court of Justice on the American role in Nicaragua that said the U.S. was in “breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another state.”
In that case, Reagan flagrantly dismissed the findings of the International Court of Justice that found America was acting criminally in Nicaragua. One thing that certainly hasn’t changed since 1986 is that America’s presidential administrations don’t submit themselves to the law. And Obama is dutifully following in that tradition.
See here for my latest piece in The Washington Times on how the flow of U.S. weapons into Syria are getting into the hands of both pro-Assad militias and anti-Assad jihadist extremists.
Does Congress give a rat's ass whether arming the rebels is illegal or not ?
Tentative Support in US Congress for Arming Syria’s Rebels
Long an Advocate, British PM Backs Off Own Plans
by Jason Ditz, July 15, 2013
Secret Congressional briefings have apparently borne some fruit, and the Obama Administration has reportedly gained “tentative” support from Senators who were opposed to arming Syria’s rebels.
How the administration answered criticisms of its plan to arm rebels, which came under criticism for getting the US involved in an open-ended civil war and potential having the arms end up in the hands of al-Qaeda fighters, is unclear.
But as US officials are getting less cautious, one of the most outspoken international advocates for the scheme, British Prime Minister David Cameron, is said to have scrapped his own plans, leading rebels to accuse him of “betraying” them.
Cameron’s newfound concerns are the same ones that people have been warning about for a long time, that arming the rebels will suck them into the war and that the increasingly divided rebels may lose at any rate. The warnings took awhile to reach the British leadership, apparently, and still haven’t gotten to the Obama Administration.
Add Israel to the list of those parties confused by US foreign policy in Syria and elswhere for that matter......
Officials: Israel Puzzled by US Decision to Confirm Syria Attack
Unsure Whether Leaks Are Pro or Anti-Intervention
by Jason Ditz, July 15, 2013
On Friday, unnamed US officials confirmed that a recent “explosion” that killed a large number of Syrian troops at a coastal base was caused by an Israeli air strike, the second time in as many months that an attack Israel had seemingly gotten away with was outed by US officials in leaks to the press.
Though Israeli officials insist they’re not mad, they say they are puzzled by the leaks and aren’t clear whether the agenda is pro-intervention or anti-intervention, though they’re sure it’s one or the other.
The “pro” argument is on the belief that officials are hyping the Israeli attacks, and the fact that Israel seems to be able to keep attacking with no real repercussions, as part of a narrative that the US could attack at its leisure and expect to get away with it too.
By contrast, some officials think it might be an “anti-intervention” argument trying to convince the US public that Israel has things well in hand with its own strikes and that the putative need for a US invasion is unwarranted.
Absent in all of this speculation is whether the revelations are an effort to shame Syrian President Bashar Assad, who had previously promised to retaliate against future Israeli attacks and seems reluctant to draw attention to those attacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment