The Daily Tar Heel
Printing news. Raising hell. Since 1893.
Friday, March 29, 2024 Newsletters Latest print issue

We keep you informed.

Help us keep going. Donate Today.
The Daily Tar Heel

US airstrikes in Syria spur debate

The United States and a broad coalition of Middle Eastern powers on Sept. 22 expanded strategic airstrikes from Iraq to include Syria.

Airstrikes were aimed at Islamic State members and leaders as well as their infrastructure in Syria and Iraq — including headquarters and supply, finance and military facilities, said an anonymous State Department official in an email.

The goal of these airstrikes, the official said, is to degrade the Islamic State’s organizational and military capabilities.

The State Department official said that Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, alerted Syria of its airstrikes. She justified the airstrikes in a Sept. 23 letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in which she said the U.N. charter allows countries to defend an unequipped country.

“We did not request the (Syrian) regime’s permission,” the State Department official said. “We believe the Syrian government lost all legitimacy a long time ago.”

Joseph Caddell, a UNC visiting lecturer of history, said the U.S. can target specific Islamic State sites, unlike other military targets.

Caddell said the airstrikes have the potential to lead to extreme consequences, both with respect to the safety of Syrian citizens and future international relations.

“Even if you have a majority of successful strikes, it only takes a fairly small number of mistakes to alienate a lot of people,” Caddell said.

According to Department of Defense statements, the U.S. has also targeted leaders of an al-Qaida faction in recent airstrikes. The faction, known as the Khorasan group, comprises al-Qaida leaders who have taken advantage of Syrian government instability to gain control in the region.

David Schanzer, a public policy professor at Duke University, said he supports continued U.S. efforts against al-Qaida.

Sixty percent of American citizens approve of U.S. military action in Syria and Iraq, according to a Sept. 20 Gallup poll.

On Sept. 17, President Barack Obama promised citizens at U.S. Central Command in Florida that American troops would not be deployed for combat. Instead, the United States has committed to aiding the ground troops of their military allies, he said.

A U.S. military officer, who asked to remain anonymous due to government protocol, said Obama’s refusal to go to war limits future U.S. flexibility.

“As we say in the military, the enemy has a vote,” he said. “(Islamic State’s) actions could possibly put us in a position where something else is necessary.”

He said airstrikes might not be an effective long-term solution.

“Yes, we will be able to identify and pick off small groups of (the Islamic State group) there in Syria. Strategically, is it going to undermine their ability to operate and control regions? I don’t know,” he said.

Eric Fournier, former colonel in the French armed forces, said he was skeptical of a purely airstrike-based campaign.

To get the day's news and headlines in your inbox each morning, sign up for our email newsletters.

The United Kingdom approved airstrikes in Iraq, but has not declared action in Syria.

“I think everyone’s reluctant to (send troops) because no one wants to come back to Iraq. At some point, there will have to be someone on the ground to do the job,” Fournier said.

state@dailytarheel.com

Special Print Edition
The Daily Tar Heel's Collaborative Mental Health Edition