Thread by @S_R_Anders

“[T]he administration has made clear that it cannot, under existing congressional authorities, intervene to protect the Kurdish fighters.”

Interesting—because that’s not exactly what the Trump administration has said in the past...
washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

In Syria, the U.S. has previously claimed that the AUMF authorizes it to take defensive action on Kurdish allies’ behalf, specifically against the Assad regime and its partners.

Why does the same theory not apply to attacks from the Turks?
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4411…

One possible explanation is that this “collective self-defense” theory has been framed as narrowly applying to imminent self-defense.

But it’s not clear why that logic wouldn’t extend to at least some defensive action here.
scribd.com/document/39003…

Another is that the U.S. may see the campaign against ISIS as finally being over, meaning its basis for engaging in any collective self-defense has ended.

But this would also mean the U.S. could no longer defend the Kurds from Assad, which would be a real game changer.

More likely, perhaps, the U.S. has determined that a conflict with the Turks is not “necessary and proportional” to the counter-ISIS mission. Which may be right—but once again it’s hard to distinguish from anti-Assad actions, past or future.

A final, less likely possibility is that we view Syria and Turkey as having a different legal status—perhaps because, by entering Syria in 2014 without its consent, we entered an armed conflict with it under international law, a step we haven’t taken re: Turkey.

Personally I find #3 most likely, while recognizing that it entails a fair amount of policy judgment in drawing the legal lines—something not unprecedented in these areas of law.

Note that, while I sympathize with the Kurds’ plight, I’m not criticizing this limited view of the 2001 AUMF.

The collective self-defense theory is a facilitator of potentially dangerous mission creep and setting limits on it is good.

But it’s not clear what those limits are.

Authors, could you share where U.S. officials made this assertion re: congressional authorization? I’m curious if their statement gives more clues as to their legal theory.

@leloveluck @smekhennet @karendeyoung1