All Things in Moderation

I’m no foreign policy expert and I’ve probably spent more time and effort protesting wars than really understanding the reasons justifying our involvement, or believing them.  I was just as shocked as anyone on 9/11 though and remember how revenge caused me to ignore my normal, anti-war, gut reaction that I’ve harbored since Vietnam.  I suspended my inclination to distrust our government in matters of foreign policy and kept an open mind regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Bush’s case for invasion.  Colin Powel’s presentation went a long way towards keeping me, if not acquiescent, at least open-minded.

I remember going to a family gathering with a lot of conservatives in attendance and listening to them talk about a friend of a friend of a friend supposedly living in Iraq celebrating the end to Hussein’s reign and how women were going to be free and the warring religious sects were going to make peace………..or something like that.  I was pretty skeptical but kept my mouth shut, obviously hoping their enthusiasm was justified.  Not long after that we began to get wind of disturbing news regarding our justifications and our questionable treatment of prisoners.  Eventually, I joined the war protest movement locally.  I really did feel a level of betrayal that reminded me why my natural inclinations against aggressive and war-like solutions to international problems had been justified.  That’s not to say however, that we are never justified.  I couldn’t have been any happier when OBL got what he deserved.

Americans of all political stripes don’t like the idea that citizens are being killed or slaughtered by their country’s own government and so we are torn between wanting to punish someone for that and knowing that our interference may just make things worse.  Involving ourselves in another ME civil war seems like a recipe for disaster and I don’t support the strikes.  Having said that though I think we, as a country, should be looking at ways to make Assad pay for what he’s done, assuming he or his government are actually responsible.

Obama is planning to make his case this week to the American people and Congress but I’m not really impressed when I read this , he’s expecting us to believe air strikes are the only solution.  I read somewhere that the WH is responsible for releasing a tape showing the aftermath of a sarin attack,  I haven’t seen it yet but I’m sure it’s awful.

In his radio address, Obama said failing to respond to the attack would threaten U.S. national security by increasing the chance of future chemical attacks from the Syrian government, terrorist groups, or other nations. The United States said more than 1,400 people were killed, including hundreds of children.

“We are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria,” he said.

Why does our response automatically mean strikes against the Assad regime that may unleash a worse rebel faction associated with Al Qaeda or possibly even cause more harm to Syrian innocents.  It seems to me there are alternatives that we should be exploring first, assuming I’m not just being completely naive and none of these ideas will work.

1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice

2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces

3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conference

4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria

5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people

6. Force the hand of Russia and China in the Security Council

I don’t really know how feasible all of this is but based upon the more detailed explanations of each suggestion in the piece at Common Dreams doesn’t it seem like we should at least try other options before just beating the war drums?  It seems to me there’s an awful lot at stake here, much more than our President’s reputation.  I mention that because I believe there are Democrats in the Senate and the House who are possibly supporting Obama simply because he’s their leader rather than listening to either their constituents or their conscience.

And I don’t know how many of you might have seen this piece but there’s an “unholy alliance” of sorts forming in Congress.  (semi-corked by JNC)

At a town hall meeting with tea party supporters, somebody had asked Yoho about a rumor. Was it true that he — a conservative veterinarian in his first term who loudly opposes any compromise with the White House — was working with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Congress’s leading liberal loudmouth?

“I wish I could tell you it wasn’t true,” Yoho recounted saying. “But it is true.” There were gasps, he said.

Yoho and Grayson are among a group of unlikely allies in Congress: liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans, united by their opposition to a military strike against Syria.

The Democrats in the group have lost faith in war. The Republicans have lost faith (or never had it) in President Obama. In this case, — as Obama seeks approval for a limited kind of warmaking — their doubts aligned.

The result was an ad hoc coalition of Congress’s unwilling.

This group has become the core of a surprising backlash in the House. At least for now, it appears that more than half of representatives are ready to defy both a Republican speaker and a Democratic president, and vote against a military strike.

I signed their petition yesterday, for what it’s worth.

Filed under: SYRIA | 63 Comments »