Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Why are some states more war-prone?

Dinara Khalelova

Have you ever thought why some states are most prone to conflict? Some countries in the World are facing “infinite” number of conflict within the state and with other states. There is significant number of such countries. According to several sources, the worst bloodshed events are happening in Syria. BBC News (2017) states that Syrian Civil War is continuing from 2011, and took about 300 000 lives of people. Moreover, as a result of the war, approximately 11 million have lost their homes. Another country that is included to the list of the most war prone countries is Iraq. Iraq is also considered as the most dangerous war zones, because in the history of Iraq, there are a significantly big number of wars and conflicts took place. As in Syria, Iraq also undergoing a long war since 2014. UN reports that in 2016, according to calculations about 20 000 people were killed between 2014 and 2015.

Weeks (2014) in her book explains why some countries are prone to war. In order to find an answer, the author analyzes different nondemocratic regimes, including those of Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin; Argentine junta, and the communist regime of the North Vietnam. She believes that nondemocratic states have predisposition to war.  According to her findings, the type of authoritarian regime plays an important role in raising conflict.  She claims that in authoritarian state such as Iraq, where leaders of states directly and fully control the military, and more prone to start conflicts. However, authoritarian states that ruled by parties, like China, instead are less prone to conflict. It shows that not all authoritarian countries are war “lovers”.

To sum up, Weeks (2014) strongly believes that the regime type has a considerable impact on future prosperity of wars. She concluded that particularly countries with authoritarian regimes, like Iraq has the danger for having numerous conflicts.
_____________
References:
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-war-torn-countries.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229
http://www.historyguy.com/wars_of_iraq.html#.WPomFvl97AU
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iraq-civil-war.htm


Weeks, Jessica L. P. 2014. Dictators at War and Peace. Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Bombing Syria: The US Needs to Adopt a New Authorization for the Use of Military Force

Aidana Sapuan

In response to Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against nonviolent Syrian citizens, on April 7, 2017 newly elected President Trump authorized 59 Tomahawk missile strikes. This has raised serious doubts about the lawfulness of Trump’s unilateral decision both under the US Constitution and the international law.

The US Constitution in Article I clearly states that the decision and responsibility to start a war belongs to Congress, not the president. Though the president can make a sole decision to repel sudden attacks, Assad’s recent actions in Syria do not represent such worries for the US national security.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Congress adopted the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to take violent actions against “those nations, organizations, or persons he (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”  This document has given a president of the US a mandate to make a unilateral decision to use force against a particular type of actors connected to a disastrous event in 2001. Nevertheless, during the following 16 years presidents have been using this resolution to justify operations in the Philippines, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, sometimes with a minimal connection to the main cause stated in AUMF.

In the context of this document, ISIS and Assad’s regime do not seem to fit the characteristics that would allow the sole decision to use force, since the former is an organization that did not exist in the time of 9/11 attacks, whereas Assad regime’s direct threat to US’s national security is under a big question. Therefore, the question of whether Trump’s decision violates US constitution still remains open.

There was a precedent during Obama’s administration that reflects today’s concerns around Trump’s order to deploy missiles in Syria. In 2013, Obama unilaterally authorized striking against Syria after Assad’s use of chemical weapons. This has provoked a big discontent among the representatives in Congress, which ended up by an unsuccessful presidential request to redesign and adopt a new AUMF . This precedent might explain the inactivity of current members of Congress as a kind of tacit consent to comply with Trump’s sole decision to use military force against Syria.


Nonetheless, though there might be a silent consensus between Congress and President Trump about the morals and motives for the use of US military force in Syria, do things have to stay the way they are? In terms of sustaining healthy civil-military relations, the answer is definitely no. The adoption of a new separate AUMF for Syrian conflict would define the scope of the mission and outline political and military objectives of potential military operations in Syria. Moreover, the Congress is in urgent need of providing the channel for public to check if the financial, human and military capability costs associated with the “war” is worthwhile for the Americans. President Trump’s unilateral decision to employ bombing attack in Syria and the following public debate over new AUMF is a real-world example of the theory by Avant explained in Bruneau and Tollefson (2008). Her theory, the division of civilian power between the executive and the legislature might potentially degrade the wellness of civil-military relations in the US, since instead of forming a bilateral decision, parties will try to “play one off against the other” and to promote its own interests (ibid, 61).

__________
Reference list:
Bruneau, Thomas C., and Scott D. Tollefson. 2008. Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations. University of Texas Press

Web sources: 
https://www.justsecurity.org/39695/illegal-hard-part-begins/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-challenges-in-asking-congress-for-authorization-for-use-of-military-force/
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/military-force-syria-congress
http://www.concordmonitor.com/Congress-must-act-on-new-Authorization-for-the-Use-of-Military-Force-9250103