Trial-balloon statements like this, from a "senior administration official" to the NY Times, are likely just that--full of air--however they nonetheless make one fearful: "It’s a step too far to say we’re drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn’t made a decision. But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar."
As a legal precedent for U.S. airstrikes on Syria, yes. But let's not conflate legalities with justness or prudence. Any given act might be as ill advised as it is legal; and besides, since when has any power been unable to find a legal justification for whatever it damn well chooses to do. From James K. Polk's unjust aggression to John Yoo's acrobatic logic, we have always found a pettifogging way.
As a situational precedent? Kosovo was a separatist-ethnic conflict of Balkanized limits, whereas Syria's is one of sectarian strife of almost boundless geopolitical potential. And in religious wars, especially, there is never a saintly side.
What's the alternative to Assad? That's the pressing if not the only legitimate question, and it has nothing to do with legalities.
The comparisons don't end there. The Balkans at least were in reasonable geographical proximity to Nato and, once the US lit a fire under them some consensus that thy should get off their collective asses. Nor were there excellent supply lines feeding both sides of the conflict. Here's some excellent and (what should be) some unnecessary advice. Stay the fuck out until a coalition that can usefully intervene, with a plan and opportunity to do it, exists.
Posted by: Peter G | August 24, 2013 at 11:37 AM
And let's recall that in both Bosnia and Kosovo, the main force that might have aided the other side--Russia--didn't. it would have been a much different war if they had.
Whichever of a thousand groups we decide to back in Syria is not going to see all the other contenders fall over.
Posted by: Charlieford | August 25, 2013 at 09:55 PM