As we talk about another war in Syria, we should look at why politicians are so comfortable with war and in some cases war crimes. Now just to be clear, as defined by the Geneva convention, destroying civilian areas is a war crime. These crimes have been committed by the administrations of Trump (e.g.: Civilian bombings in Yemen), Obama (e.g.: Civilian bombings in Syria) , Bush jr (Really?), Clinton (Civilians killed in Afghanistan) and the list would go on to.
Even Franklin D Roosevelt, who is considered the most progressive president by many had illegal Japanese internment camps. Therefore, by stupid logic we would send every president to jail.
However, that would be a flawed way of thinking. One of the main reasons we make certain actions illegal is to disincentivize the act. One of a government's, or in this case the ICC/ICJ's, job is to disincentivize "bad" actions and incentivize "good" actions. Had the ICC or the ICJ prosecuted Bush's administration over the crimes committed during the Iraq war, Obama may have thought more before he began bombing campaigns in Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya (where he also led a regime change).
So why the hell doesn't the ICC or the ICJ prosecute these guys? Well if I'm completely honest, the UN is very weak. When it comes to prosecuting the US, UK, France, China and Russia for war crimes they will almost always suffer from a veto, the same applies for their allies.
So then why the long rant? Well Obama had the opportunity to prosecute the Bush administration, had he done that he would have been the first person to prosecute war crimes by a US president. This would have set a standard which would mean that presidents would be hesitant before committing these acts.
Anyways, I'm no genius but it seems to me like this is a recurring problem which no-one does shit about, so thats my idea on how this may eventually be stopped.