Biden’s First Strike
Dropping bombs on the Middle East is a rite of passage for modern Presidents and last week Joe Biden officially joined the club, after a U.S. air strike targeted facilities in eastern Syria. It took Obama just three days to launch a military operation. Nine for Trump. Biden waited a whole 37 days. I guess that’s what people meant when they said he was the most progressive nominee ever.
The Pentagon says the Syria strike was in response to a February rocket attack on a U.S.-led military base in Iraq. That attack killed a civilian contractor and injured a United States service member. A group called Saraya Awliya al-Dam claimed responsibility for the rocket. There’s no evidence that they actually carried it out, but they insist it was in response to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Why are there still U.S. service members and U.S.-led military bases in Iraq? This is a very interesting question, insofar as no one bothers asking it anymore. Years ago people used to have some catchphrases about terrorism handy, or soliloquies about American idealism if they were liberals. Now there’s basically a consensus that the Forever Wars can’t be defended and only a handful of hawks even bother trying.
Many people picked Obama over Hilary Clinton in that Democratic primary because the Illinois Senator opposed the war, while Clinton supported it. “Operation Iraqi Freedom” officially ended in 2011, but the Obama administration sent troops back to stop ISIS. When he left office, there were still 5,262 troops in the country. In a speech at MacDill Air Force Base, he acknowledged that things probably weren’t changing anytime soon.
“We know that in some form this violent extremism will be with us for years to come,” said the former president. “In too many parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, there has been a breakdown of order that’s been building for decades, and it’s unleashed forces that are going to take a generation to resolve.”
When Donald Trump ran for the Republican nomination, he railed against the Iraq War and falsely claimed that he always opposed it. This may have earned him some votes, but (like all his anti-establishment bluster) there was no actual substance. When Trump left office, there were around 6,000 troops in Iraq.
Biden infamously voted for the war and helped sell Bush’s agenda, but now he’s changed his tune. During the campaign, he generated a number of comical excuses for his initial support (“I got a commitment from President Bush he was not going to go to war in Iraq”) and claimed that he wanted to get all the troops out. In remarks to the United Nations Security Council last month, Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Mills, painted a much different picture.
“The Biden Administration supports a strategic partnership with a stable, democratic Iraq,” said Mills. “The Administration will be a steady, reliable partner that supports Iraq’s anti-corruption and economic reform efforts, strengthens regional relationships, holds accountable human rights violators and those who abuse human rights, provides humanitarian assistance, backs efforts to control militias and to control Iran’s destabilizing activities, and advises and assists Iraq’s counterterrorism forces.”
“Let me end by saying, Madam President, the United States will remain a steady, reliable partner for Iraq, and for the Iraqi people – today and in the future,” he concluded.
This sure sounds pretty vague and concerning, but you’re not supposed to worry about Iraq when you think about the recent Syria bombing. The administration wants you to know that it’s standing up to Iran. They say an Iran-backed group carried out the rocket attack and the Syria strike targeted facilities full of militias connected to the country. When asked about the reason behind the bombing, Biden admitted that it was a warning shot to the Islamic Republic. “You can’t act with impunity. Be careful,” said the president.
Obviously we all know that impunity is only reserved for countries like Saudi Arabia. The same week that Biden hit Syria with bombs, the administration released an unclassified intelligence report that confirms something we already knew: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for the brutal 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
In response to this information, Biden instituted something called “The Khashoggi Ban”, which lets the State Department impose visa restrictions on people who engage in “counter-dissident activities.” However, it won’t put any kind of sanctions on MBS or do anything to hold Saudi Arabia’s leadership accountable for torturing and killing a Washington Post columnist.
In an interview with CNN, White House press secretary Jen Psaki somehow managed to keep a straight face while saying this: “Historically and even in recent history, Democratic and Republican administrations, there have not been sanctions put in place for the leaders of foreign governments where we have diplomatic relations and even where we don’t have diplomatic relations…that is what diplomacy looks like. That is what a complicated global engagement looks like and we’ve made no secret and have been clear that we are going to hold them accountable on the global stage.”
The United States currently has sanctions on 30 countries. On the same day that Psaki gave this answer, another Biden official announced that they won’t be lifting Trump’s sanctions on Venezuela. “We’re in no rush to lift sanctions,” said the official. “If the regime undertakes confidence-building measures that show that they’re ready and willing to engage in real conversations with the opposition … if they’re ready to take serious steps, then we will consider the alleviation of sanctions.”
That’s what complicated global engagement looks like, I guess.
Some Democrats Question Legality of Bombing
It might be superfluous to point this out, but the bombing of Syria was illegal. Over at Just Security, Adil Ahmad Haque (a Professor of Law and Judge Jon O. Newman Scholar at Rutgers Law School) explains why:
The airstrikes did not repel an ongoing armed attack, halt an imminent one, or immediately respond to an armed attack that was in fact over but may have appeared ongoing at the time (see here and here). And the airstrikes were carried out on the territory of another State, without its consent, against a non-State actor (or two, or more) (see here). These two reasons, combined, are decisive. It cannot be lawful to use armed force on the territory of another State when it is clear that no armed attack by a non-State actor is ongoing or even imminent.
A number of Democrats questioned the legal basis of the attack and called on Biden to seek congressional approval for such action.
Virginia Senator Tim Kaine: “The American people deserve to hear the Administration’s rationale for these strikes and its legal justification for acting without coming to Congress. Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances. Congress must be fully briefed on this matter expeditiously.”
Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy: “Congress should hold this administration to the same standard it did prior administrations, and require clear legal justifications for military action, especially inside theaters like Syria, where Congress has not explicitly authorized any American military action.”
California Rep. Ro Khanna: “This makes President Biden the seventh consecutive US president to order strikes in the Middle East. There is absolutely no justification for a president to authorize a military strike that is not in self-defense against an imminent threat without congressional authorization. We need to extricate from the Middle East, not escalate. The President should not be taking these actions without seeking explicit authorization…I spoke against endless war with Trump, and I will speak out against it when we have a Democratic President.”
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders: “I am very concerned that last night’s air strike by U.S. forces in Syria puts our country on the path of continuing the Forever War instead of ending it. This is the same path we’ve been on for almost two decades. For far too long administrations of both parties have interpreted the authorities in an extremely expansive way to continue military intervention across the Middle East region and elsewhere. This must end.”
I was particularly struck by this statement from Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey:
“I am concerned that yesterday’s strike by the United States in Syria is a continuation of a generation of presidential overreach in the use of military force. Our Constitution and laws give Congress, not the President, the exclusive powers to authorize military force and declare war. But President Trump, as well as his predecessors, made it repeated practice to stretch the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force and asserted broad Article II authority to justify hostilities not just against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein, but against actors in all corners of the world. President Biden has an opportunity to move away from endless intervention in the Middle East by coming to Congress before taking military action and joining me and many of my colleagues’ call to repeal the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs.”
There’s certainly some nonsense here, like the implication that the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs were originally used for just causes. However, the fact Markey bothered saying anything is interesting. Despite his progressive domestic agenda, the Green New Deal sponsor’s foreign policy is often quite bad.
I don’t remember much Democratic push back to Obama’s foreign policy. So, what’s changed? In the case of someone like Markey, his reelection was delivered by young progressive activists. The War on Terror has been happening for the vast majority of their lives, or had already begun when they were born. They lived through a recession, are impacted directly by the student debt crisis, have seen the United States spend trillions destroying other countries, and now they’re watching an administration prioritize air strikes over stimulus checks.
Granted most of these Democratic complaints are merely procedural, but their base has shifted on these issues and their responses reflect that. Yesterday, this even moved beyond rhetoric. Tim Kaine and GOP Senator Todd Young introduced bipartisan legislation to repeal the 1991 and 2002 authorizations that paved the way for Iraq to be destroyed. So far, Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Chris Coons (D-DE) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have signed on as co-sponsors.
Odds & Ends
?? Secretary of State Tony Blinken says the Biden administration “enthusiastically embraces” the controversial IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which includes certain criticisms of Israel. Jewish Insider obtained a letter that Blinken sent to American Zionist Movement President Richard Heideman, where he declares that Biden is “eager to work with allies and partners to counter Holocaust distortion and combat anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance abroad while we strengthen our efforts at home.”
Last month, Kentucky became the first state to adopt the working definition.
⚖️ This week Blinken also reiterated that the administration opposes the ICC investigating Israeli war crimes. “The United States firmly opposes an International Criminal Court investigation into the Palestinian Situation,” he tweeted. “We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.”
Here’s what US Campaign for Palestinian Rights Executive Director Ahmad Abuznaid tweeted in response: “No to boycotts. No to Security Council resolutions. No to conditioning aid. No to moving embassy back. No to investigations. No to justice. You’ve said a lot but what you really mean is you wish Palestinians would just disappear.”
?️ Speaking of Ahmad Abuznaid, we interviewed him on the last episode of the Mondoweiss podcast. If you like our site, I would recommend subscribing.
? Add Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan to the list of politicians who have criticized Israel’s vaccine policy. “Palestinian people are living under Israeli occupation,” he tweeted. “Israel should be giving Palestinian people the vaccines they need, just like they’ve given them to Israeli people. Giving vaccines to other countries before Palestinians is inhumane.”
? At a mayoral forum hosted by the Muslim Democratic Club of New York, Andrew Yang was confronted about his recent Forward essay on BDS. The candidate has faced backlash for saying the movement is “rooted in antisemitic thought and history” and comparing it to Nazi boycotts of Jewish businesses.
Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour asked Yang about the essay. “The question is there was harm that was done and are you willing to sit with Palestinian Americans so you can understand the other side of the story, the impacted community who are living under a military occupation?” asked Sarsour. “We felt that your Forward article was written without any engagement from Palestinian New Yorkers or from Muslim New Yorkers who are very close to this issue of Palestine.”
Yang insisted that he wouldn’t prohibit any form of protest if he became mayor and said he would be happy to meet with Palestinian groups and activists. “My view on BDS is that because of its failure to disavow certain organizations that have expressed violent intentions toward Israel that I disagree with it but I have complete respect for people who have a very different point of view,” said Yang. He admitted that the essay might have confused violent protestors with nonviolent ones.
✉️ Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) are circulating a letter to Secretary of State Tony Blinken, asking the Biden administration to condemn the International Criminal Court over its recent ruling on Israel. Last month, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber confirmed that it had jurisdiction over war crimes committed by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory. The Biden administration has already indicated it doesn’t agree with the ruling and it still hasn’t lifted Trump’s sanctions on the ICC.
Stay safe out there,
Michael
