We appreciate President Obama's decision to seek the advice and consent of Congress in making the decision whether to strike Syria in response to the lethal gas attacks of Aug. 21. We look forward to a full public debate as Congress fulfills its constitutional obligation. We hope that all relevant questions are answered before a decision is made, and that the rewill be neither a rush to judgment nor a march to folly.
President Obama's proposed military authorization is simply too broad andopen-ended. After debate and amendments, the final decision may be between [1]a narrower authorization limited in scope and timing, or [2] an authorizationendorsing forceful diplomacy as the primary policy of the US towards the Syrianconflict. It is even possible that the authorization will fail due tointractable differences among the parties in Congress.
Progressive Democrats generally oppose any military escalation likely to deepenthe quagmire or set off a spiral of further escalation. Progressive Democratsgenerally favor forceful diplomacy instead of force uncoupled from meaningful diplomacy. Progressive Democrats are mindfulthat every cruise missile flying towards Damascus represents one milliondollars that could be invested in health care, education, or the fight againstclimate change. And progressive Democrats worry about the rise of an ImperialPresidency which smothers democratic decision-making in the fog of secret wars.
Therefore we oppose any Congressionalmilitary authorization and favor instead a forceful diplomacy based on path toa cease-fire and power-sharing arrangements under international supervision.
To those who claim that America's global credibility reputation is on the line,we say that we must act to save America from its recent reputation forunnecessary, unaffordable and unwinnable wars.
We ask why in recent days our government should be readying missiles to attacka Syrian dictatorship for massacring innocent civilians when we are funding andsupporting an Egyptian dictatorship that massacres innocent civilians in Cairo.No wonder our credibility is in question.
Our power is out of alignment with any discernible purpose in the eyes of mostAmericans.
We offer these thoughts as the debate proceeds.
First, it is necessary to complete athorough investigation of the Syrian gas attacks using the most objective andrigorous standard of proof.
There is no question that the deployment of chemical weapons against Syriancivilians on Aug. 21 was a violation of international morality and law. But ifsubstantial questions remain, after a thorough investigation, as to who was actually responsible for the attack, a US decisionto launch military action against the Assad government, army or bases should bedeferred, out of respect for what our Declaration of Independence calls the"decent opinion of mankind".
Second,take seriously the role of multilateral alliances.
The United Nations Security Council will not approve of a military actionagainst Syria. Nor does the UN Secretary-General who personally says there isno military solution. No does the Arab League endorse military action. TheBritish government has been shaken by dissent. The Germans are silent. OnlyFrance, the former colonial power, favors military action. How does it benefitAmerica power or reputation to act in such virtual isolation?
Third,do not be drawn into the trap of escalation.
Massive pressure now is being exerted to escalate the conflict in order tooffset the perceived battlefield advantages of the Assad regime. But as John F.Kennedy observed, military escalation is like drinking to an alcoholic. Onedrink leads to another while the corpses mount. If we strike Syria, we onlyinvite escalation and a wider war. Or as Gen. Dempsey observed in his letter toSen. Levin, "once we take action, we should be prepared for what comesnext. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." We should ask ourselves, whobenefits from deeper involvement in what could be a permanent quagmire, and atwhat costs?
Fourth,forceful diplomacy is more important than force without diplomacy.
We should escalate morally, politically and diplomatically against the Assaddictatorship while insisting that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all Assad'sallies terminate their military assistance in what has become an ugly sectarianproxy war. Congress should call for an immediate cease-fire in place anddiplomacy aimed at an interim power-sharing arrangement in a new Syria.President Obama should be armed with that message in his forthcoming summits inEurope and St. Petersburg. It is striking that President Obama has suspended asummit with Vladimir Putin over the case of whistleblower Edward Snowden whileapplying no such pressure to cut off the flow of Russian arms to Assad inpursuit of a cease-fire. It is equally telling that US diplomatic hostilitytowards Iran prevents seeking an accommodation over Syria.
All talk of sovereignty aside, Syria is a broken country composed of a Sunnimajority ruled over by an untenable royal dynasty representing a privilegedAlawite/Shi'a minority. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot putthe Assad kingdom back together again. The battle in Syria has inflamed andattracted the Sunni minority in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not the cause of theseethno-religious uprisings, but is the malignant offspring.
Fifth,begin a national conversation about the incoherence of America's Middle Eastpolicy. Widen the conversation beyond the traditional national security elite.
The consistent thread of our policy should be towards greater democracy, equityand citizen participation in the region. But again and again, however, ourpolicy reflects a double standard, or even multiple standards. To a certainextent, this pragmatism is understandable, but it is incomprehensible that ourgovernment funds the massacre of innocent Egyptian civilians by generals whooverthrew an elected government, while at the same time threatening to bomb aSyrian
dictatorship for the same massacring ofcivilians. We inflict drone punishment on Taliban sanctuaries while offeringmilitary protections for oil monarchies. It is this double standard whichradicalizes so many people in the region towards jihad by providing evidencefor what is taught in madrassas.
Democracy and conflict resolution, not religious power struggles, competitionover oil, or blind support of the Israeli Right, should be the steady standardof American foreign policy.
If Congress should approve a military authorization for bombing Syria, onething is certain. Another military action, and another congressional debate,are likely to happen again. The conversation we
need will resume again. That is why Congress should seize the opportunity, inthe tradition of the Fulbright and Church hearings of decades ago, to create anaccountable public forum for the public
debate over war and peace. Other forums of civic society should be energized tojoin the public debate in the spirit of the "teach ins" which spreadacross our campuses in response to the Vietnam escalation of 1965.
The conflicts in the Middle East are only the foreign policy focal point ofthis debate over democracy and security. At home the shadow of a new ImperialPresidency has arisen in response to the militarized foreign policy crisis. Thedrone wars have escalated behind a curtain of secrecy. CIA secret operationsproliferate. Our government is launching offensive and defensive cyber war operations.Big Data has enabled Big Brother spying on a scale unimagined. Whistleblowersare
hounded. None of this has occurred with proper Congressional debate, decisionand concurrence. Instead the public sphere meant for democratic dialogue isleft to the underwhelming oversight of secret courts and intelligencecommittees who are bound not to speak of what they know.
We need congressional resistance to this loss of democratic and constitutionalpower. Congress, which is closest to the voting public under our governingarrangements, is meant to share the war-making power with the executive state,raise and expend taxes for national defense, and conduct oversight over everybranch of the federal bureaucracy. Congress was never meant to be a juniorpartner in collaboration with the executive, but an independent check on theexcessive power of the state. The battle to stop an escalation over Syria isonly the next chapter of the longer struggle to enrich democracy in America.
My next letter just might be to support the impeachment of the President! Shame he was re born as Bush III.作者: 清风寨 时间: 2013-9-5 07:04 本帖最后由 hls812 于 2013-9-5 09:04 编辑