Monday, May 28, 2012

Syria: The "Atrocities" Excuse to Violate National Sovereignty

Cover: The Responsibility to Protect
The escalating "atrocities" in Syria could end up triggering a military intervention, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey told Fox News on Monday -- following the massacre that left more than 100 dead.  (FoxNews article)
International efforts to pressure Syria intensified on Monday, as the United Nations special envoy Kofi Annan began negotiations in the capital, Damascus, and the chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that continued atrocities could make military intervention more likely.  (New York Times article)
Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States....America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide.  (PSD-10 Mass Atrocities)
Employing our military in support of the UN's Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) Doctrine is not in our national interest and is not the proper use of our military.  In no way do the killings (or "atrocities") in Syria have anything to do with the United States of America.  Certainly we do not like Assad for his support of Hezbollah and Iran, but he has not directly threatened or attacked our nation.  We cannot use "atrocities" as an excuse to depose him or any other ruler that we do not like.  In short, accusations of "atrocities" are a method to legitimate the violation of another nation's sovereignty in order to overthrow a government that does not support the goals of the US and/or the UN.

Should we choose to conduct military operations (war) in Syria, either as a result of a UN Resolution or Article V of the NATO (Washington) Treaty, other nations will not view it as a legitimate use of force.  Russia will most likely be one of them, and may seek to catastrophically reduce our powers as they will perceive the US as being an unconstrained threat to their national interests abroad.  China could be another.  Iran will certainly look to retaliate should they lose their key ally on the Mediterranean.  Military intervention in Syria could set off a catastrophic chain of events.

Deposing Assad would also result in another domino falling to the Muslim Brotherhood and another step toward the creation of a Sunni Caliphate.  Neither side in Syria are friends of ours, and it is in our best interest to let them continue fighting each other.

This Memorial Day, we as Americans must ensure that our service members give their lives in defense of the Constitution and the people of the United States, and not in the pursuit of some specious crusade against a people who do not pose a direct threat to us.  Their job is not to bring order to the world on behalf of the United Nations and its attainment of a disturbed vision of worldwide control.  Not a single American need die in a war against Syria for committing "atrocities" against its own people.

Here is a partial timeline that lays out how the Executive Branch of the United States Government has been actively adopting and institutionalizing the United Nation's "Responsibility to Protect" as our own foreign policy:

  • May 27, 2012         "Massacre" of civilians in Houla provides the UN with an excuse to legitimate military intervention under the "RtoP Doctrine" (The Australian article)
  • April 23, 2012       President Obama pledges to develop a comprehensive strategy to prevent and respond to mass atrocities (exploiting the Holocaust to justify the use of force against any nation accused of committing "atrocities"; source)
  • August 4, 2011      Presidential Study Directive 10 (PSD-10) on Mass Atrocities Issued
  • Early 2011             NATO employs lethal force to "protect" Libyan civilians
  • January 30, 2009   Ban Ki-moon issued a report on "Implementing the Responsibility to Protect" (more info)
  • September 15, 2005   UN Introduces the "Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" (items 138-140) in the UN General Assembly (document link)
Where is the United States Congress in all of this?  The Executive Branch is clearly telegraphing its intention to use military force in Syria.  Congress needs to say "no."

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

No comments:

Post a Comment