Feeds:
Posts
Comments

On the Precipice in Syria?

June 14, 2013 by dcortright

Syria has crossed Obama’s ‘red line’ in using chemical weapons, and the U.S. government is headed across the Rubicon of deeper military involvement.

There seems little doubt from the accumulating evidence, collected primarily by French and British investigators, that some chemical weapons have been used in Syria’s increasingly savage civil war. Syrian government forces control these weapons and are probably responsible for using them, but hard evidence is still lacking. A background analysis in Monday’s New York Times examines the continuing cloud of uncertainty about who used these weapons.

Thursday’s White House statement bases its conclusions primarily on “reporting.” It states that only “small-scale” use has occurred and acknowledges the absence of forensic evidence. Especially significant is this statement: the evidence “does not tell us how or where individuals were exposed or who was responsible for the dissemination.” That’s an extraordinary admission of the lack of firm evidence. Hardly the basis for becoming militarily involved.

The White House statement says that the U.S. will expand assistance to the Supreme Military Council, but it does not mention sending weapons. Administration spokespersons have said the administration will begin supplying small arms and ammunition, but no timetable has been given. The delivery of heavier weapons would require the presence of U.S. military personnel and contractors, which the White House remains reluctant to consider.

The White House says it will present its evidence to the international community. That’s the right step to take. The administration should bring whatever evidence it has to the Security Council and gain international support for taking appropriate action against those responsible.

The arguments against arming the rebels remain strong, as I write in my recent op ed in the Christian Science Monitor. Sending more weapons will intensify the war and increase the risk of the U.S. being dragged into another Middle East war. The administration should focus on pursuing a ceasefire and negotiated peace settlement. Rather than delivering weapons the United States should send more urgently needed humanitarian assistance for the Syrian people.

Posted in Syria | 7 Comments »

Falling Short: Obama’s Speech on Drones

May 27, 2013 by dcortright

President Obama’s address last week was a response to mounting public criticisms of U.S. counterterrorism and drone warfare policies and an indication of the importance of public engagement on these issues. The New York Times described the speech as “momentous turning point” toward ending the perpetual war of the past 12 years. Let’s hope that’s true, but there is still a very long way to go. Some of the steps outlined by the President and his advisers represent modest steps in the right direction, but other aspects of White House policy remain deeply troubling and suggest a possible expansion of the scope of drone warfare.

The President’s speech was accompanied by briefings from senior officials and a White House factsheet. The briefings confirmed what private researchers have reported, that the number of drone strikes has been declining recently. The White House provided no numbers, but figures from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show the number of strikes in Pakistan declining from 128 in 2010 to 48 in 2012. In Yemen the number of estimated strikes rose from 13 in 2011 to 26 in 2012. In both countries the number of strikes so far in 2013 is lower than in past years.

The White House did not explain the reasons for the downward trend, but the President claims that the criteria for targeting are now “heavily constrained.” He issued a Presidential Policy Guidance last week to codify strict guidelines of oversight and accountability for future drone strikes, but he provided no details. The administration continues to refuse demands from Amnesty International and other human rights groups for public disclosure of these criteria.

It was encouraging to hear Obama declare his intention to end the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), the legislation adopted by Congress immediately after 9/11 that permits the use of “all necessary military means” without temporal or geographic limits. This was the first time a President stated unequivocally, as the New York Times noted, that “the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future.” Obama declared,

I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate. And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.

Also important were Obama’s renewed call for closing Guantanamo, his decision to lift the moratorium on transferring Yemeni detainees, and his intention to try remaining suspects in civilian or military courts. As columnist Joe Nocera notes, however, Obama could have done much more over the past four years to close the facility and end the continuing abuses there.

Very worrisome was the administration’s expansive redefinition of who could be targeted by drone strikes. Obama made no reference to his previous claim to strike only “senior operational leaders.” He probably knows better than to repeat that claim, following recent disclosures from journalists Peter Bergen and Jonathan Landay that less than two per cent of those killed by drone strikes in Pakistan actually fit that description. The President spoke instead of attacking “those who want to kill us.” The White House factsheet said that lethal force could be used against “a target that poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” These are extremely broad criteria that must be challenged.

The President’s speech and the limited disclosures of last week fall far short of what is needed. More public engagement on these issues will be needed. We should support the President’s declared intention to end to the war on terror, but we should also press for greater transparency and demand an end to illegal targeted killing.

Posted in Counterterrorism, Drones | 2 Comments »

‘Carte Blanche’ for Unlimited War?

May 20, 2013 by dcortright

At an extraordinary hearing on Capitol Hill last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee debated whether the policy of open-ended U.S. military operations around the world known popularly as the ‘war on terror’ should come to an end, or should continue indefinitely.

The focus of the hearing was the innocuously named Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). The AUMF was the Congressional resolution adopted immediately after 9/11 authorizing “all necessary military means” against those who planned or aided the terror attacks, later amended to allow strikes against Al Qaeda and “associated forces.” The AUMF language is used by the Obama administration to justify its policy of drone warfare, which has killed more than 3,000 people in Pakistan and Yemen in recent years. It is also the basis for a major expansion of U.S. covert military operations over the past 12 years.

During last week’s hearing Michael Sheehan, the U.S. assistant secretary of defense for special operations, said that military operations against alleged terrorists would likely continue for “at least 10 to 20 years.” Robert Taylor, the acting general counsel of the Pentagon, said the AUMF allows military action against any group seeking to harm the U.S. or its coalition partners. When asked if this would allow “boots on the ground” in places like Yemen or the Congo, Taylor said yes. Does this mean the battlefield is everywhere, Senators asked? “Yes sir,” said Sheridan, “from Boston to FATA [Pakistan’s federally administered tribal areas].”

Even hawkish Senators seemed nonplussed at these extraordinary claims. “The authority … has grown out of proportion and is no longer applicable to the conditions that prevailed” after 9/11, said John McCain. He found it “disturbing” that the Pentagon wants to continue this authority but said he understands “because basically you have carte blanche” to do anything around the world.

Newly elected Senators seemed genuinely shocked. Angus King of Maine said that the administration’s theory has “essentially rewritten the Constitution here today.” The Pentagon’s interpretation makes the war power of Congress “a nullity.” This gives “unbelievable powers to the president” making it “a very dangerous thing,” said King.

Senator Joe Donnelly of Indiana asked if the AUMF allowed intervention in Syria. He pointed out that Al Nusra, one of the rebel groups, is affiliated with Al Qaeda. Could the executive branch use lethal force against the Front, he asked. Sheridan dodged the question. Senator Tim Kaine found the suggestion that the AUMF could justify action in Syria especially disturbing and said he did not want anyone to get the idea that this would be acceptable to Congress.

It was an extraordinary show of Pentagon arrogance, combined with a refreshing expression of Senatorial skepticism.

Posted in Counterterrorism, Drones, Syria | 3 Comments »

Game Changers and Red Lines in Syria

May 6, 2013 by dcortright

I appreciate the good comments readers have made on my thoughts about the Syrian crisis. Here are further reflections on the latest developments:

If the disclosure on Sunday by Carla Del Ponte of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria is confirmed that Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons, this is a real game changer. It blows a big hole in the Obama administration’s story about the Assad regime crossing the President’s faux red line. It shows how little the government really knows about what’s going on in this complex and bloody civil war. It should make us extremely cautious about becoming involved militarily and reluctant about providing military support for the Syrian rebels.

Speaking of red lines, what about the apparent Israeli air strike against Syrian military facilities early Sunday morning? Several powerful explosions destroyed critical military installations near the presidential palace in Damascus, killing a number of elite Syrian troops. Israel has not confirmed the strikes, but the scale and precision of the attacks were unmistakably of Israeli origin. Sunday’s attack followed another apparent Israeli strike on Friday near the Damascus airport. U.S. officials say that Israel is acting to prevent the transfer of missiles from Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Israeli attacks against Syria are a blatant violation of international law. They increase the risk of the conflict spreading further in the region and should make us even more hesitant about becoming involved militarily. As the New York Times reports today, however, they seem to be stoking debate in Washington about ratcheting up military pressure on the Assad regime. Republican Senator John McCain has reiterated his call for a no-fly zone in Syria. Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy said over the weekend that the United States will probably soon begin providing arms for the rebels.

Arming the Syrian rebels would increase the intensity of a war that has already taken more than 70,000 lives. Providing weapons to the rebels means giving military support to insurgent forces that include substantial Al Qaida-related factions. If the jihadist groups in Syria are indeed the toughest fighters, as reports suggest, they are likely to gain control of any weapons we send. The U.S. would end up arming Al Qaida.

Posted in Arms Control, Counterterrorism, Syria | 12 Comments »

Weighing Options for U.S. Response to Syria

April 30, 2013 by dcortright

Last Friday I was interviewed on the PBS NewsHour about alternatives to using military force in Syria:

Posted in Arms Control, Multilateral Protective Intervention, Sanctions and Security | Leave a Comment »

Red Lines in Syria

April 29, 2013 by dcortright

If the Assad regime has used chemical weapons and crossed the red line President Obama warned against, urgent international action is needed. This does not mean the United States should take military action. Instead Washington should work through the United Nations to confirm the evidence and if necessary mobilize diplomatic action against those responsible.

The first task is to get UN inspectors into Syria to verify if chemical weapons have been used, and by whom. The UN Secretary General has assembled a team of experts, but the Assad regime so far has refused the demand for unrestricted access and has denied them entry. The U.S. should support efforts to negotiate terms of reference for the inspection team so that it can enter the country and begin collecting evidence.

It is important to acknowledge that the information available so far is very uneven and limited. No soil samples are available from a physical site. Most of the evidence reportedly comes from tissue and blood samples that have been transmitted by multiple handlers. The ‘chain of custody’ of the detected elements and the identities of those responsible remain unclear.

It is not clear who may have used chemical weapons. Initially the Assad regime claimed that the rebels were responsible for the injuries and deaths that were reported last month. The rebels claim the government is responsible. The amounts of sarin and other toxic agents reportedly used were quite small. Some analysts have suggested that the use of chemical weapons shells may have been inadvertent. These and other questions need to be clarified before any action can be taken.

If the evidence shows that the Syrian government has indeed used these weapons, the Obama administration should work with key allies and members of Security Council to apply pressure on the Assad regime. The goal should be to take diplomatic steps that could lead to the adoption of targeted Security Council sanctions directed at those responsible for the command and control of chemical weapons systems. Hopefully Russia and China could be persuaded to support such measures. This would be a major diplomatic setback for Assad and would isolate and weaken his regime. None of this will be possible without firm evidence of actual chemical weapons use by government forces.

No justification exists for even considering military action. Crossing that dangerous red line would have severe negative consequences. It could involve U.S. forces in another Middle East conflict and perhaps drag us into the deadly Syrian civil war, worsening an already grave security crisis in the region. Bombing strikes would not be sufficient to neutralize Syria’s vast arsenal of chemical weapons, and they could cause explosions that would release the very deadly toxins we seek to contain. The use of force would squander any opportunity to win Russian and Chinese support for UN action and would hand the Assad regime a lifeline of continued diplomatic support.

Multilateral action through the UN offers the best path for determining if the regime has used chemical weapons and if so for mobilizing international pressure against those responsible.

Posted in Arms Control, Multilateral Protective Intervention, Sanctions and Security | 8 Comments »

Pacem in Terris: the Vatican’s Call to Peace

April 22, 2013 by dcortright

I gave a presentation at Villanova University last week on the 50th anniversary of Pacem in Terris, the 1963 encyclical of Pope John XXIII. I was grateful for the opportunity to revisit what is arguably one of the most important statements on peace with justice ever issued by the Vatican, with insights and exhortations that remain relevant today. Here are a few of the document’s highlights.

Rights. Pope John defines peace as an ordered society based on moral principles and rooted in rights, of which the most important is the right to life. John goes beyond the narrow focus on the fetus prevalent today to emphasize what he calls “a worthy standard of living.” Every person “has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life,” including the opportunity to work and earn a just wage (paragraphs 11, 18, 20).

The Common Good. All people and governing authorities have duties to ensure that the means of sustenance are available to all. Unless civil authorities “take suitable action,” inequalities “tend to become more and more widespread.” Governments must therefore develop “essential services,” including “public health,” and see to it “that insurance systems are made available” so that “no person will be without the necessary means to maintain a decent standard of living” (paragraphs 63, 64).

Truth. Pope John calls for the “elimination of racism.” He urges those with power and wealth to “lend mutual assistance” to others. Countries with the greatest levels of development have an “obligation to make a greater contribution to the general development of the people” (paragraphs 86-88).

The Imperative of Disarmament. John notes “with deep sorrow” the “vast outlay of intellectual and economic resources” on armaments, which imposes heavy burdens on the countries affected and deprives other of the “collaboration they need to make economic and social progress.” The encyclical demands that nuclear weapons be banned and that all nations agree on “a fitting program of disarmament” (paragraphs 109, 112).

A Call to Public Action. Pacem in Terris ends with a call for people of good will to “take part in public life” to help others. He identifies “the great tasks of magnanimous men” and women and urges every believer to become a “spark of light,” a “vivifying leaven” to help create a social order founded on truth and justice (paragraphs 163, 164, 167).

It’s a remarkable document that deserves to be read and studied as an enduring guide to public policy and inspiration for personal commitment.

Posted in Nuclear Disarmament, Peace History, Teaching Peace | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers