Zoe Weinberg October 28, 2008
Article: Syria Orders American School Closed After Raid
By Eric Schmitt and Graham Bowley
Time: October 28, 2008
Place: Damascus, Syria
Key People: Abu Ghadiya, Syrian officials, US officials, Pres. Bush, Gen. Petraeus
Summary:
This article documents the first of the responses to the US’s (the American Special Operations forces) raid into Syria on Sunday, in which American officials say, 1 Iraqi militant, Abu Ghadiya was killed. (Please see October 27 article: Officials Say U.S. Killed an Iraqi in Raid in Syria, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/world/middleeast/28syria.html?ref=middleeast)
The Syrian government did not give consent for the raid and says eight civilians were killed (the US claims all who died were militants). Now the Syrian cabinet has decided to close the American school and the American cultural center in Damascus.
Your Response:
The raid into Syria is a landmark in the war in Iraq. According to the New York Times, this move was by far the boldest in the five years since the US invaded Iraq. What’s troubling about it is the apparent lack of agreement as to whether or not it was an acceptable/necessary/justifiable move. It seems that the justification for the attack is based loosely upon broad claims of protecting American’s safety. The article reads:
“. . .the Bush administration was determined to operate under an expansive definition of self-defense that provided a rationale for strikes on militant targets in sovereign nations without those countries’ consent.”
“. . .the United States government is expected to make the case that these operations will help protect the lives of American troops. It is not clear how far-reaching the White House may be in seeking to apply the rationale, but several senior American officials expressed hope that it would be embraced by the next president as well.”
The idea of far-reaching rationale to explain measures as drastic as surprise raids is scary. Shouldn’t the US have a very clear motive or rationale behind each of its moves? The idea of protecting safety is so vague, does it not leave plenty of room for loose interpretation? I’m curious what the future response will be. Iraq-Syria relations were generally positive, but now what? And is the hope for diplomacy slipping out of America’s fingers?
{ 2 } Comments
Considering how the raid caused more than 10 civilian deaths, I see the rationale of Syria’s reaction.
The proposition that one can chase one’s assailants over national borders in “hot pursuit,” without the consent of the government therein, is nice raw meat for a debate. Does it matter if that government is indifferent to the interests of the pursuer, or even hostile to them? Should it? Does this raid put Iraq’s government into a bind? Might that have been part of the intention, or do you think it has been an unintended consequence of this raid?
Post a Comment