I'm pretty disappointed. The level of warmongering and fear-mongering that's been displayed in the media and highest levels of the US government is amazing, and horrific. Everyone from you to your Secretary of State John Kerry to Democratic strategists like Donna Brazile are suddenly emphasizing the need for military action against the Syrian regime as retaliation for an alleged chemical attack that took place last week, killing 300 people. The arguments of proponents of military action are shockingly illogical, and even more so than the literal lies that we were told 11 years ago when your predecessor was making the case to wage war against Iraq. On the other side, there are many, many reasons why military action against the Syrian regime is a bad idea, and here are just a few of them.
First of all, We don't even know what happened yet. The chemical weapons attack that took place last week has not been investigated. We don't have proof yet who used the weapons, or that it even was a chemical attack. The UN inspectors haven't reached the site to conduct an actual investigation, but that hasn't stopped people like Vice President Joe Biden to state there is "no doubt" that the Syrian regime used the weapons. Apparently, "no doubt" to Joe Biden means the argument is based on circumstantial evidence, such as "We know Assad has wanted to use these weapons before". The government actually stated that they have "near-airtight circumstantial evidence.." that the Assad regime performed the chemical attack. You don't sound too confident.
First of all, We don't even know what happened yet. The chemical weapons attack that took place last week has not been investigated. We don't have proof yet who used the weapons, or that it even was a chemical attack. The UN inspectors haven't reached the site to conduct an actual investigation, but that hasn't stopped people like Vice President Joe Biden to state there is "no doubt" that the Syrian regime used the weapons. Apparently, "no doubt" to Joe Biden means the argument is based on circumstantial evidence, such as "We know Assad has wanted to use these weapons before". The government actually stated that they have "near-airtight circumstantial evidence.." that the Assad regime performed the chemical attack. You don't sound too confident.
You haven't indicated that they are prepared to wait until a formal investigation has been completed. The level of urgency that has gripped your administration is, frankly, crazy.
So even if the investigation shows that Assad did use the chemical weapons...so what?
I don't mean to sound heartless, or apathetic. Chemical attacks against innocent civilians are reprehensible, and should never be condoned or used, even during war. But consider the facts: The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates that more than 100,000 people have been killed since the conflict began (this includes ~40K - ~50K Syrian soldiers and militiamen). There have been attacks that leveled entire apartment blocks and left dozens dead. Why now, Mr. President, has the situation become so dire that you feel compelled to act? You have to admit: your promise last year that a bunch of chemical weapons moving around was a red line for you was a statement worthy of a Mister George W. Bush. The most popular reason that is being cited as justification for this attack is that the US has to remain credible and stick to what we say. But where do we draw the line on that? Will this happen again in the future? It's a truly frightening idea - that you would ignore all logical and strategic arguments against an intervention because you need to stick to your word.
Lastly (just for this article!), Mr. Obama, you've stated that your goal in military attacks against Syria is not regime change, but to punish Assad for using chemical weapons to attack civilians. This is such a vague, arbitrary and indirect goal that it convinces you must not have gotten your law degree, because they would've kicked you out of law school if you said that. How much does he need to be punished? How do we know that Assad got the message? If he doesn't ever use another chemical weapon again, will you consider your air strikes successful? What if he uses fighter jets to gun down 500 civilians in a town. Will that be okay, or will that warrant another air strike? What if it turns out that the rebel opposition used the chemical bombs? Does that mean you will then have to attack them? Mr. Obama, there are so many obvious questions here that I'm amazed it will only take you two days to find all the answers.
I could provide you many more reasons why we should truly question what looks like the already decided upon outcome (for example, the legality of a strike without Congressional approval - don't you remember your opinion on this in 2007, when you were still Senator Obama?). By no means are they limited to what I've listed above. And to be clear, there are actually a few reasons why a military strike might be a good idea - but they are far outweighed by the cons.
I'd be happy to discuss this further with you. Let me know when you have a second free from bombing another country.
Sincerely,
Another pissed off American
No comments:
Post a Comment