UQ* has a number of questions about the missile attack on Friday, April 13, 2018 on a suburb of Damascas, Syria and Homs, Syria where chemical weapons were allegedly manufactured, stored, or deployed.
Accepted facts and assumptions: that the U.S. military, with assistance from the militaries of Britain and France, launched 105 Tomahawk (Cruise) missiles and other large, guided missiles on targets claimed to be sites where the Syrian government researched, stored, manufactured or deployed chemical weapons. The overt justification for the attack was that two weeks earlier, the Syrian government had used chemical weapons of unknown type (Sarin? Chlorine?) on a civilian population in Douma, Syria, killing approximately 46 people and injuring scores of others. The UN Security Council did not call for a military response to the chemical weapons use, but refused a Russian proposal to condemn the western attacks.
UQ-1: The U.S. justification for this attack, articulated by President Trump, was that vital American security interests were threatened. How?
What specifically was the threat implicated by the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria?
UQ-2: Was this attack be justified on the grounds that chemical weapons could be used against U.S. military personnel deployed to fight ISIS in Syria? Evidence?
UQ-3: The Pentagon declared the attacks to be “justified, legitimate, and proportional.” Given that military attacks by one country on another are only legitimate under international law either when the UN Security Council authorizes it or in self-defense, how was this attack “legitimate”?
UQ-4: The Pentagon declared that the attack was “precise, overwhelming, and effective”. In the context of an effort to eliminate what might simply have been a chlorine attack, and chlorine being readily available and ubiquitous, by what measure was it effective? Can an attack be both “overwhelming” and “proportional”? Was the Syrian chemical attack “overwhelming”?
UQ-5: The Pentagon states that the missile attack was targeted at Syrian chemical weapons research, development and storage facilities. While it is always possible to further refine and perfect a weapon, chemical weapons have been around for more than a century. How effective could this attack be called “effective”? Was it known where all of Syria’s chemical weapons were stored? If so, why were they not called out before they used them April 8, 2018?
UQ-6: If what the US, Britain and France did was also a violation of international law by attacking a third country that had not attacked them, was it justified and legitimate by the notion of greater harm – i.e. the chemical weapons were more serious violation than the tri-lateral attack on Syria?
UQ-7: The Pentagon reported that all of the missiles fired by the U.S., Britain and France reached their targets. It also reported that the Syrian anti-missile response, a barrage of missiles fired “indiscriminantly” occurred after the all the allied missiles had hit their targets. The Pentagon said: “When you shoot iron into the air without guidance, it will come down somewhere.” Was it previously known that the Syrian response to our attack would be or would likely be an unguided and indiscriminate fusillade of missile firings that could kill civilians? If so, was that considered in the determination of proportionality?
UQ-8: Should President Trump have sought Congressional approval for the attack? Why was Congressional approval apparently not sought?
UQ-9: Did the U.S., British and French militaries know in advance how many civilians were or could have been in the target zones. If so, how many? If not, was there an estimate or a range? What number of potential casualties was deemed “proportional” to the casualties in the chemical attack? Were future chemical attacks considered in the “collateral damage” calculus?
UQ-10: If it was “Mission accomplished”, what was the mission?
UQ-11: President Clinton’s missile attack on an alleged al Qaeda training camp in Sudan occurred in the week that Monica Lewinsky testified before a Grand Jury about her sexual relationship with the President. James Comey’s book about President Trump’s attempts to subborn the FBI investigation of him and his presidential campaign members is to be released the week of the Syrian missile attack. Was there a connection? Was the missile attack timed to distract from very very bad accusations by the former FBI director?
UQ-12: With more than 500,000 civilian deaths in Syria in the past five years, millions displaced, and only 44 Syrian refugees resettled in the US in the past fiscal year, 46 killed by chemical weapons, how does that justify an military attack as the correct response?
UQ-13: What legal and constitutional norms govern the actions taken by the United States, Britain, and France? Were any of these violated? Which ones? How? What can or should be done to prevent or rectify these violations?
UQ-14: Has the U.S. Congress abdicated its role in exercising its oversight of the Executive Branch and debating and governing use of military force?
UQ-15: Are we, the United States, being “played” by Bashar al-Assad, who effectively goaded us to do what he knew we would do, and then he achieved the dual goal of demonizing the U.S. and its western allies in the eyes of his public, and also got a needed excuse to further terrorize his own people with his belated retaliation/anti-missile defense?
* UQ = Unasked Questions Blog
DISCLAIMER: Among the hundreds of professional journalists covering this story around the world, there may be those who have asked these questions. This blog is directed to those journalists and all who are writing and reporting on major events of consequence to the public. It is hope they will read and ask these and other questions to elucidate the news and make the public better informed. We have not yet heard many of these questions answered in the reporting by American journalists. We hope deeply to hear these and other questions asked.
###