We have already engaged in some lively debate over the question of Syria, led by two excellent diaries by Jack McCullough, here and here; but the topic is by no means exhausted.
Jack and I obviously feel strongly that bombing Syria would be a colossal mistake, but it was clear from the conversation that some are not so certain.
It is a difficult moment for the public conscience; especially so for those of us who hoped that the Obama administration would lead us away from entanglements in the Middle East.
I thought a visit to the most recent remarks made by our DC delegates, who have more-or-less sat gingerly astride the barbed-wire fence, was in order.
First, Sen. Leahy, who appears to be struggling with his usual role in support of the President’s agenda:
“I remain skeptical of the United States going alone, and about what comes after. But this will be an important Senate debate, on deadly serious issues, about a resolution that may well see further changes. It makes sense to have the debate and then decide, not to decide and then have the debate. The Senate, and each senator, will be called upon to apply the facts, the views of our constituents, and our judgment in reaching a decision that is in the best interests of our nation and the security of the American people.”
Next, Sen. Sanders, who is clearly not leaning the President’s way:
“I intend to keep an open mind with regard to the president’s proposal on Syria but at this point I have serious reservations. These reservations are shared by many Vermonters who are calling my office – the overwhelming majority in opposition to our involvement in the Syrian civil war. I think we all understand that Assad is a ruthless dictator and that his use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and a violation of international law. Many Vermonters, however, worry that our involvement in a third Middle East war in 12 years may make a very bad situation even worse.
And finally, Peter Welch, who keeps it simple but echos the same fundamental question:
“Now the point the President has made about the heinous nature of chemical weapons and how it’s in the advantage of the world community that the norm against the use of those weapons be enforced I think is a valid point. The question is the practical one, can we do this in a way that’ll make the situation better not worse?”
Will our intervention just make a bad situation worse?
That is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.
While there’s still time to weigh-in, let our representatives hear it loud and clear:
War is not the answer.
…our leaders get so exorcised when other peoples go to war and kill their own people? Is it because it’s OUR JOB to kill them? To protect innocent people, we bomb ’em? Sort of like during TET in 1968. The major (or Colonel, I forget) said: “We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.” Asinine. “WE HAD TO DESTROY DEMOCRACY IN ORDER TO SAVE IT.
“WE HAD TO DESTROY THE WORLD…”