This is a letter I pounded out in a spare hour this morning because I was tired of hearing myself pontificate to family members. It was written with politicians and bureaucrat types in mind and so its tailored accordingly, using rhetorical strategies and discourse I might not otherwise chose. Like the whole concept of "The West", for example. I expect it won't actually be read, or at most it will receive a skimming from an intern before shooting off a form-letter of the "thanks for contacting your congressman" variety. But in the off chance someone does read it, I restrained myself a little because generally speaking neither discursive deconstruction nor people screaming "you imperialist war-mongering pigs!" get taken too seriously by the policy establishment.
=============================
Dear (Representative X, Y, or Z)
I am writing as a resident and registered voter in the
state of ________ to ask you to oppose any military attack on Syria. Flouting international law (by attacking Syria
without provocation) while citing international law (the Geneva Protocols) makes little logical, ethical, or practical sense. Putting aside any obstructionism of a
belligerent Russia against a U.N. resolution, there have been many legitimate
concerns and misgivings raised by our traditional allies about any potential
U.S. military action, as shown by this week’s G20 summit. The massive humanitarian crisis in Syria and
its neighbors, with a flight of an estimated 40,000 refugees each day across the Jordanian border, would
only worsen. The refugee camps have
grown larger than many cities.[1] These refugees are stripped of their
citizenship and their passports, and forbidden to seek work or to leave the refugee
settlement camps.
In addition,
while I personally find the actions of Assad’s dictatorial repression of dissidents
to be disgusting and deplorable, the current opposition to his regime is
neither unified nor innocent of their own war crimes. Videos of summary execution of war prisoners,
or of an opposition rebel cutting out the heart of a Syrian soldier, make it
clear that brutality is not exclusive to only one side or the other in this
conflict.[2] Equally important, the Independent
International Commission to the UN on Syria has reported evidence that rebels
have also used illegal chemical weapons in their fight against the Assad
regime. The United States should stop
enforcing international law only when it suits its own agenda.
The US and its
allies did nothing of substance to support the initial rebel opposition at the
start of the conflict in 2011, instead creating their own “Syrian National
Council” based outside the country. One
of the consequences of this has been the increasingly confused and heterogeneous
makeup of opposition forces. Senator
John Kerry’s claim that only 15-20% of opposition forces are “bad guys” is
laughable, not least because the real world can’t be neatly divided into heroes
and villains. While the Assad government’s
statements and claims about the conflict are full of blatant lies and
distortions, their claim that the opposition forces are being directed by
foreigners is possibly “more true than false” by now.[3] While it has been very clear the lion’s share
of atrocity has been committed by Assad’s forces, the conduct of the opposition
forces raises legitimate concerns and questions. The UN Commission wrote in a February 2013
report:
As
anti-Government armed groups gained control over territory, the commission
finds that they committed murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and hostage-taking,
all of which may constitute war crimes. Car and suicide bombings, directed at
non-military targets, by armed groups spread terror among the civilian
population. Anti-Government armed groups continue to conduct their operations
from within densely populated towns and villages, endangering remaining
civilians. The number of foreign fighters has grown, though they remain a small
proportion of the armed groups’ ranks.
Government
forces, affiliated militias and anti-Government armed groups have violated the
rights of children. Incidents of children being killed, tortured and raped by
pro-Government forces were recorded. Children under the age of 15 have actively
participated – including as fighters – in hostilities as part of some of the
anti-Government armed groups.[4]
The Syrian conflict has become a proxy war for Iran, Hezbollah,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other parties in the region. I have no doubt on my mind that this fact far
outweighs the plight of innocent civilians when it comes to the genuine motives
for a U.S. intervention. It is utterly unclear and unpredictable who
will step into the power vacuum created by a toppling of the Assad regime. In addition, as horrible as he might be,
Assad still has the support of a significant portion of a divided Syrian public
– this is only to be expected in a civil
war. Regardless of any proclamation
of noble and virtuous intentions, how will a US military intervention be viewed
by those Syrians, or Syria’s neighbors?
Will Assad become a martyr and symbol of defiance against a belligerent
Western government meddling in Arab affairs? A political solution,
rather than a military solution, is the only way to prevent the escalation of
the conflict and further destabilizing not only Syria but the entire region.
Furthermore,
for the first time in generations Iran has a newly-elected moderate leader open
to dialogue with the US and its allies. While
former President Ahmadinejad gave unconditional support to Assad and became his
regime’s chief backer and closest ally, the new President Rouhani has (unlike
Russia) condemned Assad’s use of chemical weapons. The Iranian public’s support for Syria
appears to be waning. This presents an opportunity
for political negotiation and pressure, and an angle that has been conspicuously
absent from the posturing in Washington and meticulously avoided by television
news coverage of the conflict.
Over 100,000
people have died so far in the Syrian civil war. The attack on the city of Ghouta on the 21st
of August was horrific and worthy of the whole world’s condemnation. Sadly this attack is being used in a
manipulative way by our politicians to drum up support for military
interference in a country that most Americans citizens can’t find on a map, let
alone be expected to understand the complexity of the situation. Chemical weapons cannot be destroyed by
airstrikes without endangering and killing thousands more: a missile attack on Syria would mostly be
symbolic, and the Obama administrations claimed intent of diminishing Assad’s
military capacity is vague and unclear.
I will not support a proxy war against Iran
and Hezbollah that uses the Syrian conflict as a convenient justification. I resent the Obama administration’s and its
Republican allies assertions that those who oppose military intervention have “lost
their moral compass.” Military
interventions and wars have historically caused many more civilian casualties
than the deaths of soldiers: the myth of “surgical” warfare through technologically
sophisticated hardware, remote-controlled drones, and guided missile strikes
has not and never will change this basic fact of war. I would rather question the “moral compass”
of a foreign policy that would have us act (in Senator Dennis Kucinich’s words)
as Al-Qaeda’s airforce, potentially aiding the very same people who attacked
the United States in 2001. The idea that
the US can attack Assad and not escalate the conflict even further, resulting
in more bloodshed and further atrocities against the Syrian population, is at
best very naïve; at its worst, the idea is disingenuous and duplicitous. Our own military experts and strategists know
better, and have voiced these and other misgivings, but are consistently
drowned out by the war drums on Capitol Hill.
Over 100,000
people are dead because of this conflict.
Refugees across Syria’s borders are living in dismal conditions with an
uncertain future. Let’s not take actions
that provoke another 100,000 deaths, or involve us in another intractable
war. Please pursue a political,
negotiated solution to the Syrian conflict.
Please vote “no” on any military strikes against Syria.
Sincerely
Dr. Vibes
[1] The number of refuges at
Zaatri refugee camp in Jordan has topped 120,000 people, according to the
United Nations Human Rights Council. http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/settlement.php?id=176&country=107®ion=77
[2] See for example: C.J.
Chivers, “Brutality
of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West,” New York Times, Sept.5, 2013
[3] Philip Giraldi. “NATO vs.
Syria,” December 19, 2011, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/nato-vs-syria/
[4] United Nations Human Rights Council,
February 18, 2013. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13003&LangID=E
