04 September 2013

About the Proposed Military Action Against Syria Being Considered in the Congress

I have not said much on this, and I do not intend to say much more than this here.  This is a financial site, but sometimes political events intrude so deeply on the state of the economy that they cannot be overlooked even on a non-political site.

I have not made up my mind on this, and I am very open to facts.

However, I would like to point out that so far there has been no clear evidence presented that there was a gas attack on the Syrian people that was perpetrated by the government forces of President Assad so as to persuade the international community.  And no independent authority has made a clear pronouncement on this matter.

Has the UN said that they have examined the evidence and have concluded beyond all reasonable doubt that it was indeed a crime against humanity, and that it was not some false flag by the al-Qaeda rebels who are fighting to overthrow the government?  These are al-Qaeda, who are otherwise our enemies in several recent wars and domestic terror attacks, ruthless and unprincipled, and who would be a major beneficiary of the ability to use the US as their strategic air support in their civil war.

Can one be so politically tone deaf as to not understand how important it is to make a case to the people that is reasoned and factually solid, so that there could be little question of the fitness and the appropriateness of the proposed military actions?

I am saddened, deeply, by pictures of injured people and especially children. There are far too many of them from around the world.   But I also remember stories about children and infants being callously injured in the lead up to the first two Iraq wars by both Bush I and Bush II that were later shown to be fabricated.

Before any more lives are risked, both American and Syrian, it seems eminently reasonable to expect a clear rationale for any action, and strong evidence that persuades at least a meaningful number of our international allies, besides the few who are already predisposed to attack Iran and its allies no matter what else because it provides a substantial benefit to them.

 And I believe that this principle has been eloquently stated, and ignored, in the recent past, as shown in the example below.   There are a number of like-minded people around the world who wish to see the evidence, and to be persuaded of the principle of the cause and accuracy of the facts before they commitment themselves to any actions, only to find themselves disappointed afterwards once again.
"I don't oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president."

State Senator Barack H. Obama, October 2002