After three days of airstrikes against Shia groups allied with the Syrian government, some members of Congress are taking aim at the White House. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy called for rethinking American troop presence in the Middle East. Republicans capitalized on the fighting to call for an end of nuclear talks with Iran.
On Tuesday, US Central Command announced it had carried out airstrikes near Deir el-Zour, Syria, targeting Iranian-backed militias. Tehran denies any ties to the groups the US is fighting in Syria. On Wednesday, three American soldiers were injured in attacks on their base and an oil field controlled by the US. CENTCOM responded with helicopter strikes on the alleged attackers.
The US carried out airstrikes on Shia militants again on Thursday. After the third day of fighting, a Pentagon official told CNN, the US has once again established deterrence in Syria.
In response to the rapid escalation in fighting over three days, some members of Congress are critical of President Joe Biden’s decisions. While Sen. Murphy approved of Biden’s actions this week, he said they promoted a review of US foreign policy in the Middle East. "It is past time for a rethink about the wisdom of having so many Americans so thinly spread across the region," he said.
Murphy additionally questioned Biden’s authority to wage war in Syria. "I remain concerned about any decision to undertake unauthorized military action when the Constitution and the War Powers Act require the President to come to Congress to obtain that authority," the Senator wrote in a statement.
Across the aisle, Republicans viewed the fighting as an opportunity to throw cold water on a potential agreement that would see Washington and Tehran return to compliance with the Iran nuclear deal. Rep. Michael McCaul tweeted, "These attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. servicemembers show why we CANNOT cut a bad nuclear deal with Iran. The Biden administration must walk away from this bad deal that will fuel Iran’s terrorist attacks on US soldiers and civilians."
The Pentagon spokesperson Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder claimed the fighting in Syria would not impact talks to save the nuclear deal. "We will defend our people no matter where they’re attacked or when they’re attacked, so the two really are not interrelated," he said.
Iran did not mention the nuclear deal in its response to the US strikes but called the bombing a terrorist act against the Syrian people. "American army against the Syrian people as a terrorist act against the popular groups and fighters against the occupation and denied any affiliation of them to the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nasser Kanaani said to Newsweek.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com, news editor of the Libertarian Institute, and co-host of Conflicts of Interest.
16 thoughts on “Biden Receives Bipartisan Criticism for Bombing Syria”
Nothing can or will ever stop the racist,Imperialist,Capitalistic rulers of the US,Israel and
Saudi Arabia from waging.war in search.of power,profit or Oil.
You can scrstch Saudi Arabia from the list. The effort to undermine MBS failed, for very predictable reasons. Effort to bring back MB Natef failed. Saudi Arabia is one of 3 already accepted candidate to Russia-China led SCO ( others being Qatar and Evypt). It is developing its own weapons manufacturing in Russian licences, buying massively Russiian oil, etc). Biden really got the message,
Things are changng. Hard to keep up.
Corporatist, not capitalist. Xenophobic, not racist. Imperialist…
yes. Control freaks. Sociopaths, Psychopaths. Narcissists.
All empires end. The trick for future generations will be to avoid doing the same things over and over again.
I think this is going to be a mini Stalingrad for the US. Their position in Syria is both militarily and politically indefensible, and there’s a capable and determined opposition that knows it. The only decision the neocons have left is how big they want to lose. If they can get the US force decimated they can try for massive retaliation but I think that would just blow back. They need to just pull out but they’re too stupid.
Yeah. With their main gig going on against Russia via proxy war, and stirring up trouble against China for no reason at all, AND bellicosity towards Iran, Cuba, Venuezuela, Afghanistan, and who knows who else, you would think that the neo cons, neo libs, and other war mongers, right, left, and center, establishment and anti establishment, in the USA, would just let this one, Syria, go. There are no vital US interests at stake. There is a weak, at best, case, for US military presence and actions under international law. It is a losing sideshow, with no popular support in Syria OR in the USA. The US war machine, apparently, just can’t give up, anywhere, at any time, no matter how compelling the case for doing so. It takes not years, but now decades, as in Afghanistan, for the US to finally admit defeat, and, even then, it continues to persecute the forces that had the temerity to liberate their own country. The grotesqueness of the US military intervention in Syria is also a terrible handicap to the USA’s political/diplomatic offensive against Russia, and international relations generally, not only in the ME, but in all of the old “non aligned movement” countries too, and in Latin America, in all of the world, really, outside of the USA’s treaty allies. Not only morally right, not only strategically, politically, diplomatically, and legally right, to pull out of Syria, but literally, as you say, “stupid” not to. But, there you go…
You won’t get any argument from me…
So of course the chances of orderly withdrawal are somewhere between slim and NFW, and it’s for Israel so end of story, but unlike the other blood soaked money pits the US forces in Syria are in a real turning in the wind situation, like the marines in Lebanon. Maybe the neocons have decided to play them that way. Funny how it’s called supporting the troops.
How about we obey international law and stop invading other countries to steal their resources ???
But that is how the game is played… You can’t just change the rules to be more rational… 😉
I would be willing to bet that those wanting Biden to leave the Middle East ONLY want that so they can concentrate on the real power struggle with Russia and China. There isn’t a one of them, all 535, that want us to take a completely different direction on foreign policy.
Rep. Michael McCaul tweeted, “These attacks by Iran’s proxies against U.S. servicemembers show why we CANNOT cut a bad nuclear deal with Iran. The Biden administration must walk away from this bad deal that will fuel Iran’s terrorist attacks on US soldiers and civilians.”
Apparently, this guy thinks terrorism is attacks on soldiers armed to the teeth in a country they are not welcomed. There will be no retraction and that bullshit will be used henceforth as reasons why Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and aren’t worthy of diplomacy.
Actual barking is starting to sound coherent in comparison.
How can we tell a difference between someone gaslighting us, and a fool?
There would need to be evidence that they know the reality.
I think we see fools.
Murphy additionally questioned Biden’s authority to wage war in Syria. “I remain concerned about any decision to undertake unauthorized military action when the Constitution and the War Powers Act require the President to come to Congress to obtain that authority,” the Senator wrote in a statement.
It might also be worth mentioning that, besides violating US law, the US waging war in Syria contradicts basic international law (ie the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force accept in self defense and/or with UNSC approval) as well.
The doctrine [R2P] helps prevent human rights abuses through diverse nonforcible means. Only when diplomatic measures prove ineffective should the international community implement measures such as the threat or the use of economic sanctions, arms embargoes, or threats to refer perpetrators to international criminal prosecution. All of which must be meted out through the UNSC. In the event of the failure of any of the measures, the UNSC consider the use of military force (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, 2008). From the above, it can be asserted that the use of force in the Syrian by the United States conflict does not conform with the procedures enshrined in the UN Charter or the doctrine of responsibility to protect. Therefore, it can be asserted that the action of the United States in the conflict is not legal. Although the United States can make the argument that there had been a failure of the Syrian government in protecting its citizens from human rights abuses, there has been a violation of international law by the United States. The argument of state failure by the U.S. government is weakened by its unilateral interventions, which lacks endorsement or approval from the UN. This violation is pronounced when juxtaposing the tenets of international law as enshrined in the UN Charter with America’s release of 59 tomahawk missiles into Syria in April 2017. The actions of the United States contravene the precepts outlined in the UN charter being that for interventions to occur in any conflict, they must be built on the approval of the UNSC. Based on the afore stated, the interventions of the United States are deemed illegal.
The US waging war against ISIS and other groups that were launching attacks from Syrian territory into Iraq could, with a lot of stretching, perhaps be justified as in defense of Iraq. But the Syrian government itself launched no such attacks. And with the R2P criteria not met either, and no UNSC approval, there is very little in the way of international law to support the US war against the legitimate Syrian government.
Contrast this cavalier disregard of the prohibition on unauthorized war making with the USA’s stance against Russia’s SMO in the Ukraine. The USA, like Captain Renault, is “shocked” by Russia’s actions.
More pretending to oppose the unpopular US military involvement in the Middle East. Behind closed doors, the DC consensus is for more war. Meanwhile “our” representatives check their phones to see how much their “defense” stocks have gone up.
Joey Biden does not know what day it is or what planet he is on. Joey certainly doesn’t know what country he is attacking again and again.
So, obama opened an office in Washington DC just down the street from the White House. It has been admitted that obama is the power behind the scenes in the Democrat party. So who do you think is quietly suggesting nominations and policy to a feeble senile angry Joey Biden who is not cognizant of his surroundings or existence?
Comments are closed.