I am
writing this letter to plead with you to oppose the President's
threatened use of military force in Syria.
I cannot
see how this can go anywhere that is good for our country. The
President calls for cruise missile strikes into a country at war to
"send a message". To whom exactly, is this message
addressed? The message is that one shouldn't use chemical weapons on
one's opponents. From the information that is available freely, it
would appear that the Assad government is not alone in the use
chemical weapons. It would appear that at least one of the rebel
groups has access to and has used chemical weapons.
The
current Syrian government is a holdover of the Middle Eastern
Ba'athist movement that brought us such stalwarts as Saddam Hussein.
He already knows we don't like him. I fail to see how lobbing some
cruise missiles into a war zone where over 100,000 people have died,
over two million people are refugees, and where on the order of fifty
factions fight for a bewildering number of goals can provide a
“measured and proportionate response.”
Bringing
the United States into this free-for-all will merely strengthen the
hands of the Salafists and the Al Quaida affiliates. It will do
nothing to reduce the flow of arms, it will do nothing to stop the
fighting. It will create a maelstrom of violence in the Middle East
that will suck us into a war without end.
I cannot
see how this action will do anything but weaken us. We are
overextended from two wars. Our troops are stretched dangerously
thin and are getting burned out. President Obama offers no clear
description of the nature of the war to which we are committing
ourselves. Because firing hundreds of cruise missiles, each armed
with a 1,000 pound warhead, into another country is nothing less than
an act of war.
I am not
opposed to war per se. It is a tactic in a bigger scheme of
policy. It can be a means of seizing the main chance in a situation.
But in order for violence to be effective, it has to be used as part
and parcel of a grand strategy. To use violence as a gesture is the
act of a barbarian.
The use
of force should be driven solely by the ideals of the peace we seek.
To put it less gently, it should flow from what we are trying to get
out of it.
President
Obama has not defined this moment. He is attempting to wrest from
Congress the right to send our country into war. Please take this
time to stop the rush to violence and wrest back from the Executive
the constitutional duties of the Legislative.
2 comments:
Obama is a vile knave, a cowardly sock-puppet, and a vulgar war-criminal.
I doubt that Congress can stop it - they will not allow a vote in the House if it is likely the House will vote against Obama's desire to start a war.
Obama needs to be censured for suggesting he can go to war without Congressional approval.
He needs to be impeached if he goes to war without approval.
Even if Congress approves this aggression, it would still be a war crime, and against the UN Charter, and against the principles supposedly established at Nuremberg to attack a sovereign nation that hasn't threatened us.
America is out of control, and this aggression is a sign of a very weak nation: the need to attack small countries to prove out "tough" it is, is a sign that the USA is on the road to moral, political, social, and economic collapse.
Ummmm... Don't hold your breath. There is a military industrial campaign contributing block that needs a war to profit from.
Post a Comment