Congressional Confusion: Syria and the AUMF

In the wake of President Obama announcing airstrikes against the Islamic State inside Syria, the U.S. Congress has been in a state of confusion about the legality of the administration's actions.  Some members are  calling the strikes outright illegal, while others seem happy to see Islamic State terrorists targeted regardless of the legality.  U.S. and international media outlets are equally confused, and pressure has been levied on U.S. lawmakers to take action and "do their job."  The strikes are legal under the 2001 AUMF that was first put into use against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and it is very important to understand that legality going forward.

Since the AUMF does not specify any nation, organization, or person, the Obama administration can target any person or group that they can link to al Qaeda or to having supported the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Clearly, they have conclusively linked the Islamic State, Khorasan Group, and al-Nusra Front in this manner.

So where does the Congress go from here?  If  they pass a new law authorizing U.S. air strikes in Syria they risk unnecessarily expanding the scope of U.S. anti-terror military operations.  Importantly, they would be specifying a country - Syria - in a way the U.S. has not done before.  Adding to the 2001 AUMF, by legislating approval for new action specific to Syria, the U.S. would effectively be starting a new war when the old war is still under way and legal.  That being said, the Syrian government does not currently fall under the AUMF and strikes against it would be illegal.  The President would be wise to keep that top of mind as these military operations progress.

Congress might be better off taking this opportunity to reevaluate the 2001 AUMF and passing legislation to limit its scope, rather than explicitly authorizing a new battleground.  Limiting its scope would force the President to be very measured when deciding on which terrorist targets to attack.  However, terrorism thrives in regions where governments have failed, and it should be of no surprise that Syria is a place of its manifestation.  This insidious harmony is likely to continue, so Congress should consider this when deciding on any action to limit the AUMF and the President's ability to act quickly.

And, while the current strikes in Syria are legal under U.S. law, they may not be as clearly legal under international law.  Their international legality should be studied further.

Bin Laden: He didn't realize what he was getting into

Two things occured to me yesterday while reading an article on Foxnews.com about Osama's killing at the hands of U.S. forces in Pakistan. The first is that bin Laden didn't truly believe the hateful doctrine he was spewing to his followers - at least he didn't believe it to the extent his suicide operatives did. The second is that when bin Laden first decided to confront and declare war against the U.S., he really didn't understand how powerful his new enemy was. He didn't understand the global reach of the U.S. national security apparatus, or envision it being more powerful than his old Soviet enemy (whom he honestly believed he defeated with his Afghan mujahideen holy warriors).

In the article, dated May 5, 2011, it is revealed that the Navy SEALs were trained to expect bin Laden to possibly have a suicide vest on and ready to detonate. This is not a surprise given that bin Laden has sent numerous members of his organization, and others, to their deaths in this "holier than thou" manner. But he didn't have a suicide vest on. He wasn't ready to blow himself and his pursuers to pieces in the name of Allah. It appears he was ready to do the exact opposite. It's been widely reported that bin Laden had 500 euros and two phone numbers sewn into his robe when he was killed. Osama bin Laden was ready to run.

Why was this so? Simply put, he was a coward who didn't truly believe in his own vitriolic preachings. If he had, there is no doubt he would have made sure to take as many American agents with him on his way to the after-life. Imagine the benefit to al Qaeda's movement had bin Laden decided to make his final moment a symbolic suicide attack against U.S. forces? He would have been praised by his followers for decades or centuries as a martyr to the likes of Jesus Christ. This would have been devastating for anti-jihadist terrorism operations. Suicide attacks against U.S. and allied forces would most likely increase exponentially for years to come. However, he didn't plan to, nor did he, sacrifice himself for the sake of his unholy cause. He planned to survive. He planned to run and hide like a coward, while he continued sending young Muslim men and women to their deaths on his behalf. We should all be thankful that bin Laden himself exposed his al Qaeda movement for the baseless fraud it really is.

Regarding the second point...bin Laden's public disdain for the U.S. began in 1990, when the Saudi Arabian monarchy allowed U.S. troops on their soil to defend against a potential Iraqi assault. Bin Laden was insulted by the fact that the Saudi monarchy denied his request to allow him and his mujahideen holy warriors to defend against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but then allowed an "infidel" U.S. military - with women among their ranks - to have the job. After defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan - the greatest military force in the world in his view - why shouldn't he have been tasked with defending the holiest country in all of Islam? This was not to be, and bin Laden turned his ire toward the United States, a foe he believed much less powerful than his old communist enemy. Over twenty years later, after fleeing and witnessing the horror he'd brought down upon his colleagues in Tora Bora, while holed-up in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, how wrong he'd turned out to be.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7