After President Obama asked
Congress to give its opinion on military intervention in the civil war in
Syria, I sent an email to James Himes, my representative to Congress, asking
him to consider the possible outcomes that might result. I wrote, “I hope you
will ask for intelligence estimates of how many lives will be lost on both
sides under the various scenarios.”
I believe that the possibility that we will do more harm than good far outweighs any other
question. Even if there is irrefutable proof that the Assad forces used
chemical weapons, that would still not justify an intervention that would cost
much more destruction and many more lives than were lost during the chemical
attacks.
Does anyone seriously think that
President Bush or Vice President Cheney would have launched invasions of Iraq
and Afghanistan after 911 if someone had been able to present them with the
actual consequences that ensued? If President Obama could have looked into a
crystal ball and seen how the attack on the Benghazi embassy would from his
Libyan intervention, does anyone think he would have gone ahead?
Mine was not the only letter that
Congressman Himes has received. He and other Members of Congress have received
a torrent of mail on the subject. Himes did respond and indicated that he had been briefed by the
President and others on the contents of highly confidential intelligence
reports. His response also included a survey question asking me to choose
between four or five different options.
Subsequently, just yesterday he
and senior Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut appeared at a local town
hall type forum in Darien to sample public opinion. According to the news
report Himes admitted that the response to his survey had been overwhelmingly
opposed to any military intervention in Syria. In her weekly column in the Wall
St. Journal Peggy Noonan indicated that polls showed that 80% opposed an attack
on Syria.
Nevertheless, Representative Himes
and Senator Blumenthal indicated on Sunday that their minds were still not made
up. However, the recently elected junior senator from Connecticut, Chris
Murphy, has already seen the handwriting on the wall and decided to vote
against intervention in Syria despite a personal call from President Obama.
Speaking of the President it would
seem that his strongest supporter on intervention in Syria would be his most
outspoken enemy, the Wall St. Journal. The Journal and some of its columnists have
been the drums for strong action. One columnist even urged a pinpoint attack to
assassinate Assad and his whole family. The Journal believes that the USA is
the sole bastion of world order and that we must live up to our role.
Even though I am a great admirer
of the WSJ I can’t but feel that they have gone off the rails on this world
order business. It seems pretty clear to me that in the last dozen years
successive American administrations have done more to create disorder in the
world than anyone else. Although President Obama promised a new era in foreign
policy on his election in 2008, it is now clear that his Administration has
de-stabilized the entire Middle East. In a few short years the so-called Arab
Spring has turned into chaos. Disorder reigns all the way from Libya to
Afghanistan.
I know that our country is tired of
war and we want our soldiers back home. I also know that it is rare for us to
consider an attack on a country or regime that poses no threat to us. Assad is
no Hitler bent on world domination. Iran and North Korea pose a much greater
threat than Syria and North Korea does have weapons of mass destruction.
Moreover, the North Korean regime has been starving its people for years. Is
that nicer than killing them with chemicals? For that matter, why haven’t we
attacked Libya after the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy. An attack on
an American embassy or consulate is considered an attack on American soil. What
has been our response there?
Pope John Paul II urged President
Bush not to invade Iraq but he failed to listen. Pope Francis has urged
President Obama not to seek a military solution in Syria. People in power
should not brush these warnings aside as impractical theological nonsense. In
the gospels Jesus was almost Machiavellian when he cautioned rulers to consider
all the consequences before going to war. He told the parable of the King who
wisely withdrew from the brink when he discovered that his enemy’s force was
twice as large as his.
Congressman Himes should not vote for war on the basis of intelligence estimates of chemical weapons. He should consider the cost in human life on all sides of the civil war in Syria, and also the possibility that the results of all our military efforts will only aid and abet our real enemies in the area.
###
No comments:
Post a Comment