TY - JOUR
T1 - Syrian Views on Obama's Red Line
T2 - The Ethical Case for Strikes against Assad
AU - Pearlman, Wendy
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.
PY - 2020/6/1
Y1 - 2020/6/1
N2 - Much ink has been spilled on the pros and cons of U.S. president Barack Obama's decision not to strike the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after that regime launched a deadly chemical weapons attack in 2013. Often missing from those debates, however, are the perspectives of Syrians themselves. While not all Syrians oppose Assad, and not all opponents endorsed intervention, many Syrian oppositionists resolutely called for Obama to uphold his red line militarily. As part of the roundtable The Ethics of Limited Strikes, this essay analyzes diverse expressions of such opinion and finds that they highlight three dimensions of the ethical case for limited strikes against Assad. First, they remind us that the ethical context of the red line question was many Syrians' sense of abandonment by the international community. Second, they emphasize the ethical stakes of the limited strikes; namely an opportunity to hold the Syrian regime accountable, weaken it from within, and thus change the equation of the war. Third, they make sense of the ethical consequences of the nonintervention outcome, and especially its effect in deepening civilians' despair, accelerating extremism, and convincing Assad and his allies that they could kill with impunity. These views controvert both legalistic arguments precluding military intervention and assumptions that U.S. intervention is always imperialist and warmongering. In this case, consideration of the case for military intervention from the viewpoint of those on whose behalf the intervention would have taken place challenges us to think deeply about circumstances in which limited strikes might be not only ethically justified but also imperative.
AB - Much ink has been spilled on the pros and cons of U.S. president Barack Obama's decision not to strike the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad after that regime launched a deadly chemical weapons attack in 2013. Often missing from those debates, however, are the perspectives of Syrians themselves. While not all Syrians oppose Assad, and not all opponents endorsed intervention, many Syrian oppositionists resolutely called for Obama to uphold his red line militarily. As part of the roundtable The Ethics of Limited Strikes, this essay analyzes diverse expressions of such opinion and finds that they highlight three dimensions of the ethical case for limited strikes against Assad. First, they remind us that the ethical context of the red line question was many Syrians' sense of abandonment by the international community. Second, they emphasize the ethical stakes of the limited strikes; namely an opportunity to hold the Syrian regime accountable, weaken it from within, and thus change the equation of the war. Third, they make sense of the ethical consequences of the nonintervention outcome, and especially its effect in deepening civilians' despair, accelerating extremism, and convincing Assad and his allies that they could kill with impunity. These views controvert both legalistic arguments precluding military intervention and assumptions that U.S. intervention is always imperialist and warmongering. In this case, consideration of the case for military intervention from the viewpoint of those on whose behalf the intervention would have taken place challenges us to think deeply about circumstances in which limited strikes might be not only ethically justified but also imperative.
KW - Barack Obama
KW - Bashar al-Assad
KW - Middle East
KW - Russia
KW - Syria
KW - chemical weapons
KW - humanitarian intervention
KW - limited strikes
KW - military intervention
KW - red line
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089494624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089494624&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0892679420000234
DO - 10.1017/S0892679420000234
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85089494624
SN - 0892-6794
VL - 34
SP - 189
EP - 200
JO - Ethics and International Affairs
JF - Ethics and International Affairs
IS - 2
ER -