West Scrambles for Legal Rationale for Syria Strike
As they move toward military action in Syria, possibly within days and presumably without the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution, the United States, Britain and France find themselves enmeshed in a debate over practical and moral questions regarding the necessity of a solid legal rationale for armed intervention.
The issue is suffused with memories of the march to war in Iraq more than a decade ago and the later discovery that Saddam Hussein did not possess the banned weapons programs used as justification for that invasion.
In this case, it largely comes down to a question of whether the Western allies can assemble a sufficiently broad coalition of support for their action, given that many experts say that existing treaties, laws and precedents do not offer a simple or clear-cut case for a military strike against President Bashar al-Assad and his forces.
The situation with Syria differs in many fundamental ways from Iraq. American, British and French officials have emphasized that any strike on Syria will be punitive, short-term and not aimed directly, at least, to oust Mr. Assad.
But as with the prelude to the war in Iraq, there is also concern that any operation not look like a purely Western affair, and that any “coalition of the willing” include Arab countries, not just Muslim Turkey.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/west-scrambles-for-legal-rationale-for-syria-strike.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
