April 10, 2017

Charles Blow, in yesterday's New York Times, laid out a salient point

about intervening in the Syrian civil war:

Picking sides in other countries' civil wars typically never ends well. It did not end well in Vietnam nor, more recently, in Afghanistan and almost certainly cannot end well in Syria either. This explains why President Obama's decision not to retaliate against Assad in 2013 without prior congressional authorization seems even more eminently wise and prudent. If we attack ISIS, we strengthen Assad. If we attack Assad, we give ISIS a boost.

I strongly recommend the entire Blow piece. It is sobering reading indeed.

April 7, 2017

Syria is now fully entitled under international law to attack the U.S.

and its possessions anywhere and anyway it can. Trump was required to go to the U.N. Security Council and did not do so. Syria is now under no obligation to seek U.N. Security Council permission since current international law allows nation states to engage in military action to defend against actual or imminent attacks.

Whether Syria is capable of attacking the U.S. or its assets is another question entirely, but it would be fully within its rights to do so from this point forward. That's what flagrantly violating international law produces.

April 7, 2017

Syria is Russia's ally. How will the Russian Federation respond? They cannot allow

Trump's naked military aggression to stand. Trump did not seek a UN Security Council resolution (just like Bush refused to do with Iraq). Thus, Trump and the U.S. have once again blatantly violated international law. So how will Putin respond? And President Ping of China? Those are the other two guarantors of the existing world order.