War Criminal or National Hero?

In February, President Joe Biden made headlines when he ordered airstrikes against Iranian-backed forces in Syria. The strikes, in retaliation for attacks against U.S. forces in nearby Iraq, represented Biden’s first offensive military operation of his presidency. Many politicians, both Democrats and Republicans alike, were quick to criticize Biden, noting the attacks made him the seventh consecutive U.S. president to order airstrikes in the Middle East. 

In the last few decades, we have sadly done much more harm than good in the Middle East. From wars waged in Afghanistan and Iraq to drone strikes in Pakistan to our involvement in Syria, our continued involvement has resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians as well as entire countries being thrown into political turmoil. Involvement in the Middle East is one of the most controversial aspects of our recent history. The controversy mainly comes from our leaders, whose reckless decisions have led many to label them as war criminals. So, are they truly war criminals, or are they simply making tough decisions about the military? Also, is it really that black and white, or is there a gray area in between?

Before appointing such a title to our leaders, we must define what a war crime constitutes. According to the Geneva Conventions, war crimes can include “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment” that are “not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” By that definition, the airstrikes Biden ordered in February did not constitute war crimes, as they did not represent “willful killing,” but that does not necessarily mean that they were sensible nor the best way to retaliate against Iran.

Despite the relative legality of the Biden strike, past presidents have committed acts that can be labeled as war crimes. In 2003, George Bush invaded Iraq under the rationale that dictator Saddam Hussein was creating weapons of mass destruction, thereby beginning the Iraq War. Those weapons were never found, and although Hussein was eventually captured, tried, and hanged, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died in the conflict, and the region was completely destabilized. In the first few years of the war, Bush authorized enhanced interrogation techniques, more commonly known as torture, against prisoners in secret CIA-operated sites across the world. While the use of torture has since stopped, his support for it will always be a stain on his legacy. In fact, a Malaysian court convicted Bush and many of his cabinet members of war crimes in 2011. Although the ruling was simply ceremonial, it shed light on the international community’s reaction to American actions abroad. 

Although Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, fared better and is regarded as a good president overall, he still had his fair share of controversy. In October of 2015, the U.S. bombed a hospital in Northern Afghanistan operated by Doctors Without Borders, killing approximately 42 people and injuring over 30 more. Obama apologized for the incident and gave money to the families of the deceased, but his apology does not atone for the reckless disregard for human life which was not “justified by military necessity” whatsoever.

Before taking office, many Americans were concerned with Biden’s views on foreign policy, which are hawkish compared to those of his Democratic primary rivals. As a Senator, he spoke in support of and voted for the Iraq War, and as Vice President, he stood by President Obama as he committed what many consider to be war crimes. However, as president, Biden has so far shown a commitment to de-escalation in the Middle East. He has halted our support for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, announced a plan to withdraw from Afghanistan, and shown a willingness to negotiate with Iran. Hopefully, his presidency will mark a new beginning for U.S. foreign policy and military action.

Overall, no leader should automatically be considered a “war criminal” for authorizing any military action, as death is sadly inevitable in any armed conflict. We also must understand that leaders must weigh opportunity costs at every juncture in order to protect the American public and American interests abroad. With that being said, Presidents Bush and Obama showed that we must hold our leaders accountable for actions that go beyond the scope of national security, such as torture and the reckless endangerment of civilians. As President Biden adjusts to his role as commander-in-chief and navigates the fragile situation in the Middle East, it’s as important as ever to place our trust in his judgement while simultaneously holding him accountable for any actions that overstep his bounds.