While there’s been a lot of discussion about the Pentagon’s announced intention to send between 30 and 50 special operations troops into Syria from the perspective of no legal authorization within the US, and indeed on the wisdom of throwing a few dozen men at a huge ISIS caliphate at all, Syria sees a much bigger problem in all of this.
Syrian MP Sharif Shehadeh was critical of the US for deciding after five years to suddenly send the troops into Syria, particularly since they’d made the announcement without asking the Syrian government and indeed don’t intend to coordinate with Syria at all on the matter.
“Will America allow Russian ground troops to go into America without an agreement? I think the answer is no,” noted Shehadeh. Indeed, the most the State Department said on the matter was that the newly deployed troops are only intended to fight ISIS, and not the Syrian government itself.
That’s no small concession, as the US has been talking up intending to impose regime change on Syria for years, and seems to be shifting away from ISIS and toward backing rebels fighting the Syrian military once again, with an eye toward differentiating its war from Russia’s.
The US has often presented its “advisory” deployments as something short of direct acts of war by arguing they are supported by the governments of the various nations they’re involved in. In Syria, there is no pretense at all of this, however, and Syria objects to the move.
8 thoughts on “Syrian MP: US Deployment an Act of Aggression”
Since the US is not a signatory to the ICC and as long as the US has the veto in the UN there is no legal avenue to prosecute the US on the world stage. Perhaps along with the BDS of Israel the rest of the world needs to BDS the US. Would that be the mechanism to finally get the attention of the American people?
No, it wouldn't. The power of the Israel Lobby is such that you'd need a Vietnam-type situation: large numbers of body bags filled with draftees who never wanted to go to war in the first place.The one place the US will not be alowed to abandon is the Middle East. The very last American will leave the Middle East on the heels of the very last Israeli!
My understanding is even though a country is not a signatory they will still prosecute you regardless.
Not exactly, but close. Prosecutions are contingent on EITHER the offending party being signatory OR the locations where the offenses took place being signatory.
For example, the US is not signatory to the Rome Statute (the enabling instrument of the ICC), but Afghanistan is. So US actions in Afghanistan are subject to ICC prosecution. The US might be able to bribe or politick away the possibility of said prosecution, but it is at least formally exposed to the prospect.
Let us be blunt here the US are going into Syria to PROTECT Al Qaeda Soldiers from being killed by Russia! They believe that Russia will not attack American Soldiers on the ground, as they would be to scared to start a World War!
The reality is this America started this activity, they directly funded Al Nusra (Al Qaeda to you and me) Isis is a splinter group of Al Qaeda itself funded by Saudi Arabia! what we are seeing is in fact an act of Aggressive war!
As for all of the Refugees they were not fleeing like this under Assad, the Refugee problem in Europe is a direct causal effect of Americas activities!
If I follow the logic of Mr Ditz's argumernt correctly, sending military forces into a country without the consent of that country's government (as Putin has done in Ukraine, for example) is unacceptable.
Are you talking about the alleged Russian military assistance to the armed forces of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics after they were no longer part of Ukraine? Or are you claiming that Putin actually sent Russian forces into Ukraine itself? If so, please elaborate.
Evidence please? Oh, and as for Crimea there was an agreement that they were allowed to have 25,000 troops in Crimea which then voted (unlike Kosovo) to secede from the butchers of Kiev.
Comments are closed.