I have written a few posts on the implications of the United States’ most recent (known) raid, which has had very negative impacts not only in relations between the U.S. and Syria, but in relations between Iraq and Syria, and even between the U.S. and Iraq.  Syria was included on the list of countries suspected to have al-Qaeda elements within its borders.

This approval was not used indiscriminately, however, as many such operations have been canceled (“as many as a dozen” according to the NYT), and still required high-level approval.

Now that this order is public knowledge, the political fallout, both domestic and international, will be interesting to see.  This may support widespread feeling in the Middle East that the United States and other Western states have used their military power with impunity to advance its interests abroad.  However, some may also argue that these raids take the burden off of some countries to shoulder the anti-terrorism security concerns or that it improves security (as the U.S. will certainly argue).  Many feel that the Syria border-crossing was in the best interests of Iraq’s security, for instance.  However, it is difficult to imagine the latter being the majority view, particularly with governments trying to assert legitimacy and sovereignty.

Joshua Bark

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has naturally denied all allegations of a nuclear reactor while General Hayden refuted the claim, affirming that the United States’ foreign partner had confirmed the objective of the plant, which was alleged to have been aided by North Korea to produce and retain plutonium. The bottom line remains one of United States intervention, another in a long line of hegemonically influenced “preemptive strikes.” Most importantly the question of a nation’s right to sovereignty has many in the international community wondering where the boundaries are crossed between one nation’s self-preservation and another’s self-determination.

Samuel Anene

Bookmark It

Hide Sites