The Unlawful Offense

        Before I get too wrapped up in the right or wrong of the actions, it’s important to first say what’s going on.  As always, one needs context before they can understand the story.  Recently, the United States have decided that someone or some nation needs to take action in Syria.  That’s a war going on between the Syrian government and rebels that’s creating a ton of refugees.  Actually, the number of refugees is so many that it’s hard to find a place for them to reside.  As such, the United States have decided that they need to take action.

            As the United States planned for action in the Middle East, Syria to be exact, they came up with two avenues.  The first course of action they have sought is the training of rebels.  According to the New York Times, “the United States have been training Free Syrian Army people in Jordan to infiltrate into Syria.  Although the number said by the Times article is around 50, European reports actually estimate that the numbers are in the hundreds.”  Nonetheless, this course of action establishes one method the United States plan to pursue to quell the chaos in Syria and which side they support.  The second option that the United States plans to seek is that of air drone attacks or bombing the nation of Syria.  That happens to be where most of the problem comes in.

            In order for the United States to have the authority to bomb, and/or go to war with a nation, they must have approval from both Congress and the United Nations.  For the sake of clarity, I think it’s certainly worth repeating that the United States has to seek approval from the United Nations before ever entering war or using force with another nation.  To do so without their approval would be to go against the Security Council of the United Nations and to be in violation (US Attack).  At the point in time, the United States only seek to get approval from Congress.  By the way, that does mean that both the Senate has the House has to agree for President Obama to pursue war in Syria.  Should the U.S. go, too, the necessary route of the Security Council, they would have to get the majority of nine to agree that it’s okay for them to use force, and that must include the permanent members of the United Nations (US Attack). 

            On a side note, there is one way to avoid going through the Security Council of the United States.  The United States could always, somehow, claim self-defense from Syria.  Under the premise of self-defense, the United States would be able to attack Syria without getting the “okay” from the United Nations.  It’s important to note that this isn’t the path or plea the United States is pursuing; they aren’t foolish enough to claim self-defense (US Attack).

            In terms of the “so what” question, there’s two results the president could face should he not get approval from both places.  Should the president not get approval from Congress, he simply cannot use force, according to the Constitution.  According to the UN Charter, should the president not get approval from the United Nations, he is in violation of international law and would be involved in an illegal war.

            The main point to be made here is the United States doesn’t seem to care about that.  Whether they will be breaking international law or involved in the same criminal acts of other nation isn’t a concern.  The U.S. only seeks to get approval from Congress and that raps up the case.  For justification, the United States is trying to point out that Syria is using chemical weapons and that the nation is harming hundreds of thousands of people (US Attacks).  Regardless of what they’re doing, it still rings true that the United States would be just as bad for entering an illegal war and bombing a group that we’re “opposed” to.