top of page
  • Writer's pictureMia Burke

Understanding Biden's First Known Military Action: The Airstrikes in Syria

An Overview

On Thursday, February 25th, the US military hit a site in Syria used by two Iranian-backed militia groups in retaliation to rocket attacks on American forces in neighboring Iraq. Syrian Observatory for human rights said on Friday that the strikes killed at least 22 people. John Kirby, Pentagon press secretary, claimed the bombing in Eastern Syria as "proportionate" and "defensive". According to NBC News, "The president’s decision appeared aimed at sending a signal to Iran and its proxies in the region that Washington would not tolerate attacks on its personnel in Iraq, even at a sensitive diplomatic moment".


Why Retaliate?

During one week in Iraq, there were three rocket attacks including a deadly strike that hit a US led coalition base (NBC). It is reported that these rocket attacks coincided with a diplomatic initiative launched by the administration to try "to revive a 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers".


John Kirby shed some light on these attacks : "Specifically, the strikes destroyed multiple facilities located at a border control point used by a number of Iranian-backed militant groups, including Kata'ib Hezbollah and Kata'ib Sayyid al Shuhada...The operation sends an unambiguous message; President Biden will act to protect American coalition personnel. At the same time, we have acted in a deliberate manner that aims to de-escalate the overall situation in both Eastern Syria and Iraq."


The Legality of it All

The Syrian government responded to the US retaliation and labeled it "cowardly US aggression" during a statement from the country's foreign ministry. The foreign ministry also indicated that these US strikes were illegal as they violate international law and will "“will lead to consequences that will escalate the situation in the region".


One of president Bashar Assad's chief backers, Russia, stated that they had received a four to five minute warning prior to the attack. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke to reporters in Moscow to argue that this notification was essentially meaningless as the strike was on its way. He also took to claim that the US was holding operations in Syria "illegally" and urged for better communication with the Biden Administration (NBC).


The White House responded on Friday saying that the US was backed by Article II of the Constitution as well as the UN Charter. The Pentagon stated that this article "grants the president powers as commander in chief, and citing article 51 of the U.N. charter, providing countries the right to 'self-defense' in response to an attack".


An NSC spokesperson also said, "We had a rigorous process to include legal review of the strikes conducted" and also explained that Biden used "his Article II authority to defend US personnel ... and to deter the risk of additional attacks over the coming weeks.... The strikes were necessary to address the threat and proportionate to the prior attacks" (BBC).


Some Complaints

Many democrats have spoken on this recent attack and explained that the lack of congress approval doesn't sit right with them.


According to BBC, Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, said in a statement that "offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances. Congress must be fully briefed on this matter expeditiously."


Also, Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, explained that he has "inherent trust" in the Biden Administration's national security decisions but argued that these militia attacks were "unacceptable". Murphy states, "Congress should hold this administration to the same standard it did prior administrations, and require clear legal justifications for military action, especially inside theaters like Syria, where Congress has not explicitly authorized any American military action".


What's Your position?

Do you think this act of retaliation was justified or not? Do you think congress needed to approve it or was the fast act necessary? How do you feel this sets the precedent for the new Biden administration? Weak or strong?


If you would like more information please look at the sources down below!



Sources

58 views0 comments

留言


Post: Blog2 Post
bottom of page