Reflections on Syria

Thesis:

It's about time the USA sets a new standard concerning whether to use military force abroad, especially when involving countries engaged in civil war. Only Congress should make that decision and not by means of passing resolutions giving the President that power "should he see fit." We are at the point where it's too easy for our executive branch to manufacture evidence for We-the-People to put our trust in that branch. If the USA's president wants to take any military action in cases that don't involve a direct threat to the USA or its allies, it should be mandatory that he obtain a declaration of war from Congress as the Constitution mandates.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

We're supposed to believe President Assad used chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus, killing 1,400 people. Even though there was no military reason for doing so. And no evidence, except perhaps secret evidence the ordinary citizen will never see. Sure, we saw lots of pictures of dead children, but did we see any of fallen rebel soldiers? Has any intel from our drones, satellites, or clandestine on-the-ground operatives (yes, we already have boots on the ground in Syria) shown Assad's troops launching these weapons? And even if such evidence existed, how are we to know that those troops were really loyal to Assad or were they about to defect to the rebel side? Israeli intelligence has also been silent as to who did what to whom.

So far, all we've seen is a willingness by Obama to unleash limited, punitive strikes for Assad having dared to cross a red line. Obama is expecting Congress to back him up, since to withhold that support would embarrass the USA as a whole. Obama opened his big mouth about red lines without having first gained assurance from allies that they would back him up. For Congress to vote "no" would be to leave Obama twisting slowly in the wind.

We were also treated to the spectacle of Secretary of State Kerry talking about an unbelievably small strike, followed by Obama saying the US military doesn't do pinprick strikes. That's funny, since that military will do whatever they're ordered to do. It's not like they are incapable of pinprick strikes. So what's Obama talking about?

Even if Assad's loyal troops used these weapons, who is the USA to take the moral high ground by deciding to punish for the use of chemicals that killed 1,400 as opposed to more conventional means that have killed 100,000 over the past two years or so? I keep reminding people that the USA was the world's first nuclear terrorist state, having killed about 200,000 mostly civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for no good military reason. Given that past, we're hardly the ones to bleat about violations of the rules of war. It would be far more appropriate for the Muslim states (and only them), such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt, to punish Assad once it is determined conclusively that he was indeed responsible. The USA could have and should have sat on the sidelines.

I personally believe American agents in Syria were responsible for launching this chemical attack. I also believe that this two-year old revolution didn't just happen. More likely? Sleeper cells in Syria were patiently created by US agents over the last ten years, much as they were in Libya. Unlike Libya, though, the US miscalculated in terms of the large degree of support Assad enjoys. It seems a lot of Syrians aren't too keen on the uncertainties of the kind of Islamic state that would take his place.

The logistics of the rebels would argue in favor of outside (read "US") support. How does a rebel army, supposedly materializing from thin air, manage to grapple with Assad's professional and well-equipped army for so long and, in some cases, so effectively? Who feeds this rebel army, or do they steal food from the local population? Who supports the rebels' families while their men are off fighting a war?

There's simply too much the US voter doesn't know (and can't know), so how are they to make informed decisions as to what course our elected representatives should take? Maybe, in this day and age of US government secret intrigues and lying, it's simply become impossible to track what's going on. If that is so, then our democracy becomes meaningless. In such a case, the only reasonable course of action is to insist that Congress alone have the authority to declare war and that it better do so only in the face of overwhelming evidence that it should and that such action would be in our national interests.

And make no mistake about this: Any attack by the USA against Syria would be an act of war, even if we try to posture it as being a punishment for a particular crime.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com