Legal justifications for arming rebels strained against international law

Evidence

The expansion of the aerial campaign to Syria created additional problems of justification. Legal analysts argued that military action against another nation without authorization by the UN Security Council is a violation of international law (Sengupta, 2014b). The legality of the justification became even more problematic when the United States decided to train and arm the Syrian rebels. A foreign country arming insurgents to overthrow their governmental system, however welcome it may be in despotic regimes, is also going against international law. The United States argued that it was protecting Iraq from the brutal Sunni jihadists. Because the Syrian regime was unable or unwilling to eradicate these militants from their sanctuary on Syrian soil, the United States had the right to do it. Besides, the United States argued, it was arming the Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, not the Assad regime. However, the rebels acknowledged that routing the Assad regime was a higher priority for them than fighting ISIS. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2469

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Bandura’s wider thesis on moral disengagement via euphemistic labeling and diffusion of responsibility in US war justifications.