We've seen the whip counts ad nausium so far. Ever since the President announced that he would go to Congress for authorization to strike Syria there has been a tremendous amount of lobbying. The Obama administration and Bush's neocon cabinet for, and well just about every American who cared enough to contact their congressperson against. I can add another senator to that list in the link, interim senator Jeff Chiesa of New Jersey.
When I called his office and said my piece to his intern, I asked her roughly what proportion of the phone calls on Syria were against attacking Syria. Her response: "99 percent against," to which I replied, "Well I hope he acts accordingly and thank you for taking my call."
My other senator, Bob Menendez needs to be taken to task on Syria though. Not only did he vote to advance the authorization for the use of force against Syria out of the Senate foreign relations committee, he co-authored the resolution. I was a bit relieved when I called his Washington office to find that all of the lines were busy. I left a brief message expressing my disappointment in his actions but I feel I need to elaborate a bit further in writing. Below the fold is my open letter to Bob Menendez.
Senator Menendez:
I am writing you this open letter to express just how disappointed I am in your decision to support attacking Syria. You were someone who had the good judgement to vote against the Authorization for the Use of Armed Forces in Iraq in 2002. What happened over the past decade to change that judgement?
Syria's civil war has many parallels to Iraq. Assad is a dictator that used chemical weapons against his own people, so was Saddam Hussein. Assad comes from the minority Shiite Allawites, just as Hussein came from a Sunni Arab minority in Iraq. Our invasion of Iraq caused a sectarian civil war that did far more damage to Iraq than Saddam Hussein ever did. In Syria that sectarian civil war has been happening for years. Just as American military intervention couldn't stop sectarian violence in Iraq, our military is in no position to stop the violence in Syria.
I think just about everyone in America would condemn any use of chemical weapons. The question before us is if a military strike against Assad would deter him from using chemical weapons in the future. The answer is probably not. It has already come out that there are no plans to strike the locations where we think there are chemical weapons out of fear of collateral damage, so where would we launch those missiles instead?
What would we do if Assad continued to use chemical weapons even after launching air strikes at his targets? Would you support doing everything it takes to stop the use of chemical weapons even if it means deploying tens of thousands of ground troops? If we do go in and topple Assad, would you be comfortable with a Syrian government dominated by political Islam? These are some very important questions that haven't yet been answered and need to be carefully considered before a military strike against Syria is executed. You and the Administration seem itching to punish the Assad for using chemical weapons without fully considering the consequences of those actions.
In the run-up to the First Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell came up with a very good list of questions that need to be answered affirmatively before executing a military strike. I think that this Powell Doctrine can and should be applied here and now with regards to Syria. Here eight important questions that need answering with regard to any intervention in Syria:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Based on all of the information that is publicly available right now, here is how I would answer those questions:
1. Probably not.
2. Clear? Yes. Attainable? Not with just air strikes.
3. From what I've seen so far, no.
4. Probably not.
5. No.
6. From what I've seen so far, no.
7. No.
8. No. Russia, China, and the UK aside, there is little support from the surrounding region.
Your opinion my differ with mine on the first six questions but even you can't dispute that the last two answers are most definitely no. I also understand that you may have made up your mind based on classified briefings from the Administration. If that is the case I would urge you to do everything in your power to push the White House to declassify that information. The American people have just as much of a right to make up their minds based on ALL of the information available just as much as Congress does. Also I think it is important to remember that many of your own colleagues in Congress have continued their opposition to intervention despite being briefed with classified information.
The best hope for an end to the Syrian conflict remains getting both sides together into a negotiated peace settlement as quickly as possible and the Syrian rebels will have little incentive to sit down if we enter the war on their side. Any actions we take should be about improving the situation in Syria and not worsening it which a military strike would likely do. Our efforts instead should be to do everything we can to assist the over two million refugees who have fled Syria. Those are the forgotten victims of the war and they need our attention and help more than ever.
When President Obama announced that he would seek authorization from Congress prior to intervening militarily in Syria, he gave you the chance to stop him from making the biggest mistake of his presidency. It is your duty and the duty of the rest of congress to say no. I also voted for you when you ran for Senate in 2006 and 2012. If you have a primary challenge should you choose to run again in 2018 and I still reside in New Jersey I will do everything I can to get a Senator with better judgement into your Senate seat. The best thing you can do to avoid that with me would be to listen to the people calling your office and vote against your own resolution when it comes to a vote before the full Senate. The people of New Jersey deserve nothing less.