By guest author Mike Corgan
Almost daily, we learn of massacres, indiscriminate shelling, and rocket attacks against civilian areas in and around Homs. The situation in Syria seems to offer the occasion for a just war against Bashir Assad and his army if ever there were one.
Most members of the United Nations and the Arab League, as well as many others, support some kind of action. But does this near-universal consensus add up to a just war occasion?
In international law it well might. But just war theory usually requires a a just peace–a condition only implicit, at most, in international law.
And what sort of peace might follow in Syria if Assad were removed by force? Assad’s ruling Alawite faction is also supported by various other minority groups who have been tolerated under the current regime as they well might not be under, say, a strict Sunni regime.
Opposition to Assad is also disparate. There is a high likelihood that scores would be settled in the aftermath of regime change. Just look at Libya, Iraq, and now Afghanistan in the face of the impending U.S. pullout.
A just war in Syria requires a just peace at its conclusion and that means providing order. Has anyone volunteered for that task?
Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of International Relations, Boston University