Opinion-War on Syria

Jean Purcell

@OpinariPeople

I never expected to write anything about the pros and cons of war. I hold neither pacifist nor hawk convictions. Rather, I agree with view that each situation needs to be evaluated in light of history and present to future reasons/justifications and expected consequences. 

The deeply jarring and shocking reports of victims of recent chemical weapon attacks, including babies and children, causes a reaction to lash out, to mete out punishment against the perpetrators and justice for the victims. The same when we see innocents hacked and killed as has happened in other places, where we have heard of the thousands slaughtered. 

Here are my top concerns that I hope others might consider regarding the present discussions here and abroad about attacking Syria: 

• War is ugly, and we need that common sense saying kept in mind. If we could see live film/video of real people in the infernos of war, including innocents blown away while in their homes or shops...would we ever forget; would we not be forever so sickened that only a clear "must respond with more killing" (including likely civilian victims) would suffice? 
• Have you known well any veteran who saw the front lines of war? I have, and he would never offer any comment about what he saw as a decorated war fighter pilot...I never heard him speak of war in specifics beyond a couple of close calls, where he survived. He knew war involves killing others. If we agree that war is horrific upon even the victors, then surely we know it is a heavy burden to carry.  
• The U. S. (and international community, either) has not intervened in many places in the world where years of war have brutally hunted, hacked, and killed thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians. Rwanda, for example, comes to mind. More questions...

1. What are the U. S. doctrine and laws about war?
2. Why is the U. S. Congress not debating Syria with President Obama now? 
3. Why is President Obama not responding to letters requesting meetings on attacks on Syria? 
4. Is the U. S. Congress, in full membership or through foreign relations/affairs committees, so weak it cannot call for hearings on these matters? 
5. Do we believe, with confidence, that strikes would prevent chemical weapons being used in the future, or even as a pause; can we be sure they would not be used even more viciously again and in the near future? Do we know where are other chemical weapons stockpiles that could be shipped into Syria? 
6. In the present situation, are we aware of the refugee problems already ensuing and the suffering of many of weak resources in neighboring countries already over-burdened? (Could you or I, for example, absorb overnight 3,000 people on our property or in the neighborhood, each one needing to stay indefinitely, needing water, bathrooms, and food?) What about the increasing numbers likely to try to leave a Syria under attack? Are we planning to help them as they flee to Palestine, Egypt, Iraq, and elsewhere?

The British Parliament debates the Syria-attack option. It makes this American somewhat angry and saddened to see that body in full debate when nothing close to face-to-face debate or information is happening here, at home. Finally, if the U. S. decides to go and calls it an "intervention" or "humanitarian response" as euphemisms often serve so well today to cover reality...then we need to learn more, become better educated about what we are being told...or fed. 

These are a few thoughts and questions on my mind and, possibly, on your mind as well.  

2013 

Syria: U.S. Executive and Legislative powers avoiding "advise and consent" on War powers?

Jean Purcell
@OpinariPeople

I've been tweeting/twittering like crazy this a.m. over an (apparently) upcoming U.S. strike against selected targets in Syria, due to WMD/chemicals.

Americans need to think about our role in this. What is our role? Isn't it to expect the president to consult with congress?  That's my expectation, because I fear that strikes as a show of force will spark regional conflagration. We will, if not carefully considering what to do, provide ammunition, literally, for Syria's Assad and others to do more than many U.S. leaders are now imagining.  

Where, then, is/are the congress? On holiday? Unable to find a flight back to the capital city to get together with the president's men and women? Already back, but relatively quiet on this issue? Unaware of precedence for calling the president's men and/or women to the Hill to explain themselves and the president? 

What about the congressional foreign relations committees and their roles, to consult with the president, to use their powers to call hearings when military action clouds have formed already? (See a recent Washington Post report.) 

There is no cloud more deadly than a War Cloud full of weapons of destruction and ready to strike with or without a full deliberation.  

What about the region where Syria sits? What about the possibility of a spreading war? What about precipitating a reaction of horrors? There could be deadly retaliation in ways not yet believed likely or possible by western nations. 

The fear that chemical weapons use will spread is a legitimate fear. It is pushing a strong retaliation against Assad's regime, believed to be the source of the gassing of innocents recently in Syria. However...many parties need to be involved in the U.S. before we would impose outside, warring actions. But aggression is being planned, as announced or leaked. An American or coalition military display of anger and/or compassion can worsen the situation and never make it better. Aggressive action would be advertised in Syria, the region, and around the world as western aggression by unaffected interlopers gone wild. It would likely encourage more unwanted Arab action, i.e., terrorist groups outside Syria looking to infiltrate even further.     

Given the growing refugee populations in parts of Palestine, Egypt, and Iraq, one hopes the region and agencies are gearing up remarkably and that borders remain open. 

In my humble opinion, congress should be taking real action to find details of the president's plans and to make it clear that they are advising, as one, either by committees or full chambers. They need to formally communicate with American citizens. They should do more than talking and advising via news programs. At a minimum, congress and the president should be meeting face to face, which used to be the norm. They should be doing this now.

U.S. senate foreign relations committee-looking a bit hawkish on Syria  

U.S. house foreign affairs committee link here-speaking but not asking for meetings or hearings

"Solving Syria"

Opinion

FallofSaigon.org-Mass Exodus

Organizations and nations are discussing what might be a solution to end the civil war in Syria. From this American's perspective--and for reasons of humanitarian, geopolitical, and national resources, history, and/or religious interests--it is clear that influential Americans have different views. Those views usually include a disinclination to stay out of other regions' wars, a desire to see conflict, and its attendant suffering, end. 

     
Most Americans are war-weary and war-disillusioned. The solutions expected from going to war, since Korea, have not sufficed. I am not one to rush to a "war solution" view, and I think citizens and voters are weary of U. S. involvement in wars of recent years. As national puzzles grow, if there is a Syria Solution it is not appearing yet on thought-boards, charts, or known lists of acceptable options. 

    "Blood and treasure" is a phrase depicting the human costs of war. Groups like Wounded Warriors remind us of the severity of costs borne by combat survivors. They present a clear picture of "blood and treasure" through the faces, wounds visible and invisible, and families of fighters. We know their wounds could be ours or our families'...and some are.  

     In the 20th century, brain-trust names, presidential advisers, and Pentagon giants like Robert McNamara thought their analyses were correct. In his later memoirs, Robert McNamara wrote that he had long before realized that the Vietnam War, for which he had been a leading strategist, was "wrong, terribly wrong." 

     To leave dictators in place or to take them out has been an unanswered existential question of U. S. foreign policy. Where is the U. S. Congress regarding matters of advice and consultation? The second part of the war powers resolution, for example, reads that the President is required "to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542)

     We cannot make other nations' civil wars or dictatorships our military business unless we are prepared with clear, imperative reasons able to past tests learned in U. S. recent  war history. The photo on this page, a mother and wounded child fleeing an overrun Saigon in 1975 when the U. S. was driven from Saigon, is a harsh, yet necessary, reminder that when we try out of fear or any reason not soberly considered, we may do more harm than good in the end. 
     The U. S. was attacked by four civilian planes turned into tools of terror on 9/11/01. Defending against another such attack and any attacks, smaller or larger, is our present war, at home and through intelligence abroad. That war continues, a different kind of combat. I care about Syria and the whole middle east, and they are subjects of prayer. Yet, I do not think we can solve these problems militarily.

(c) 2013 Opinari Writers blog

Change

Faith is much more demonstrated in going where we do not know than sitting where we have been used to.

~ Mogama

Mogama (M.G. Matally) is finishing his forthcoming book: Refugee Was My Name, a personal journal of the Liberian civil war and the internally displaced and refugees of Liberia, from 1989.