Australians in Iraq

"The Mission" and UN Security Council Resolution 2249

What mission?

Resolution 2249 conspicuously avoided authorizing any military action under Article 51 of the Charter (or any other part of Chapter VII) but spelled out the body of international law "particularly the Charter" that must be observed.

Article 2(7) says

1. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Enforcement measures under Chapter VII are not authorized by 2249. But it calls for "all necessary means" to "eradicate" the safe haven for terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

This is a resolution of weasel words.  It calls on members to eradicate terrorists without, once again, giving a clear statement of what terrorism is, except that "terrorists" are people who are then placed on the "1267 committee" terrorism list, an opaque process.  So we have circular arguments about who the terrorists are, and contradictory instructions and permissions to member nations who have the capacity to do the unspecified eradication.  "All necessary means" presumably does not include nuclear weapons.

A plain reading of the UN Charter seems to make clear that participation in civil wars is forbidden. Whatever is going on in Syria and Iraq is civil war.  If the UN Security Council wants something enforced, it should say so and give authorization for military action. Otherwise, shut up.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called PACIFICATION. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called TRANSFER OF POPULATION or RECTIFICATION OF FRONTIERS. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called ELIMINATION OF UNRELIABLE ELEMENTS. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. 

Orwell, Politics and the English Language

Low tech national security

1. Learn the history

2. Speak the language 

3. Listen to the people who live there

All he heard from his generals President Johnson said was “Bomb, bomb, bomb. That’s all you know. Well, I want to know why there’s nothing else. You generals have all been educated at the taxpayers’ expense, and you’re not giving me any ideas and any solutions for this damn little piss-ant country. Now, I don’t need ten generals to come in here ten times and tell me to bomb, I want some solutions, I want some answers.” 

David Halberstam
The Best and the Brightest

Military people can always rationalize almost any problem's becoming military and thus susceptible to a military solution. They dislike interference on the part of the State Department when that Department sees serious political consequences stemming from the use of military force. 

James Gavin
On to Berlin

Then we dropped, hovered, settled down into the purple lz smoke, dozens of children broke from their hootches to run in toward the focus of the landing, the pilot laughing and saying, "Vietnam, man. Bomb 'em and feed 'em, bomb 'em and feed 'em." 

Michael Herr
Dispatches

Fear and loathing of Islam

#SteveJobs father #AbdulfattahJandali was born & grew up in #Syria before joining #refugees #Startup & #FastForward pic.twitter.com/5VZthWPf7c

— Alessandro AE Anzani (@AleAeAnzani) November 17, 2015

Sanity and more sanity

Four days on the trail of terror: The problem isn’t as simple as defeating Islamic State https://t.co/Q3jX8nJcdw pic.twitter.com/2HqHSLFu3h

— The Globe and Mail (@globeandmail) November 21, 2015

https://t.co/mKTOHXssIJ pic.twitter.com/MNpGt8UrFB

— Charles Glass (@CGlassArticles) November 19, 2015

Little Boys, Big Toys, Fools

"We see the United States as deeply worried about terrorism. But effectively fighting against terrorism does not mean increasing the number of military operations; it means fighting against what causes terrorism. If you introduce kindness and gentleness at the place where terrorism begins, you will eradicate terrorism without pain. It is necessary to examine the most sensitive areas of the earth. You can do nothing to stop the seventeen-year-old kid who has decided to place a bomb somewhere. You can do strictly nothing, and any effort against him will just fly back in your face. Countering violence with violence is the most ineffective response imaginable. Instead, we should target the pain, with the goal to alleviate it. I firmly desire a worldwide dialogue, and I would like to see the United States discharged from the monologue. The period of great wars is over. Science has put in the hands of children extraordinary means of death. The greatest error the United States is currently making is to think that international military operations can stop a seventeen-year-old child from acting. The focus should be placed instead on alleviating the pain in the most sensitive regions of the world, beginning with Jerusalem."

Excerpt from “Déchiffrer le silence”:
A Conversation with Germaine Tillion
by Alison Rice

Smashed-in-Head Buffalo Jump foreign policy