International law does not erase the ability of states to use military force to defend their interests.
This is just wrong:
"I think international law is clear on this. International law says that military action must be taken after a decision by the Security Council. That is what international law says," [the Arab League envoy to the UN, Lakhdar Brahimi] told a press conference in Geneva.
There have been two wars undertaken with the approval of the Security Council (both led by us, I'll add): the Korean War and the Persian Gulf War (and arguably the Iraq War since Saddam violated the ceasefire that suspended the Persian Gulf War, making the war with Saddam a two-parter). Who wants to seriously argue that the world even takes Brahimi's legal analysis seriously?
And it reverses means and ends. The UN is supposed to be a means for decent nations to rally against a threat to world peace. If member states of the UN prevent that action from taking place (coughRussiacough), who can possibly argue that the failure of the international community to rally against a threat to world peace by definition means that perceived threat is in fact no threat?
We can legally and morally fight the Assad regime. You can argue whether it is smart or dumb (for whatever degree of intervention you want to discuss), but it is not immoral or illegal. I said the same for the Iraq War.
I supported the Iraq War fully. Yet I could accept that others would argue against the wisdom of the war. But I did not understand how opponents could claim that the war was immoral to fight against Saddam's regime or the thugs who tried to steal the good thing of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, his evil spawn, and his ruthless minions.
So let's argue whether we are pursuing the proper objective regarding Assad and argue about whether our use of force is effective or worth the cost.
