Another Day, Another Air Strike
Jay Ramesh
Syrian dictator Bashar-al Assad condemned US air strikes on Thursday, Feb 25, urging the US to not adhere to the “law of the jungle”. However, it appears that Biden has already marked his territory.
As catchy as the title would have potentially sounded, the air strikes were carried out by piloted F-15E Strike Eagles, not drones. Precision-guided munitions destroyed 9 facilities in Syria near the Iraqi border that Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed groups had been using as supply depots. The strikes were in retaliation for a series of rocket attacks on the city of Erbil, Iraq last week. The rockets struck a heavily defended air base within a civilian airport, killing a US contractor and injuring several other American military personnel.
Regarding the airstrikes, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel,”. Several US coalition partners, members of Congress, and Russia were all notified before the strikes, yet the attack raises several decades-long questions regarding presidential authority to authorize such strikes.
So what does it all mean?
Internationally, it means that Biden has asserted early on that he’s willing to practice the same forms of interventionism the Obama and Trump administrations practiced, albeit with more restraint. Biden has announced that he does not want to escalate tensions with Iran, but the strikes served as a warning that attacks on US military interests, as well as US allies, should expect consequences and retaliatory deterrence.
At home… well, it’s a bit more complicated.
The Trump administration wrestled with Congress and bi-partisan lobbies over questions regarding presidential authority to launch such strikes. Kirby cited Article II of the US Constitution and Article 51 of the UN charter as authority for carrying out retaliatory air strikes, framing it as a defensive strike to protect US personnel, but Congress has bigger fish they’d like to fry.
In a rare example of non-party solidarity (and accountability), many Democrat leaders spoke out against the strikes, holding Biden to the same standards they held Trump to. Senators Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, and even Republican Senator Rand Paul all voiced decades-long concerns over Presidential authority in military actions.
The debate stems from a day we can Never Forget: a provision that expanded the presidential War Powers Act in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war. This expansion of presidential authority has enabled the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations to become infamous for launching drone strikes in foreign countries against hostile military targets, with civilians oftentimes being caught in between.
The Democratic dissent within the party is significant as, although it’s not entirely on progressive-establishment lines, it’s a chapter in a larger story about a struggle between progressive and the establishment factions of the Democratic party. Instead of falling in line as has been the norm for several decades, this may be one of the first rifts in a theme we saw during the Trump administration- party members sticking to values over larger party interests. Virtuous as it may be, Republican deviation during the Trump administration led to policy failures and gridlock, so it’s important to watch Congress and see if a similar break occurs and impedes policy agendas within the Democratic party.