US and the Syrian Civil War

Open email to Sen. Cornyn (Texas):

Dear Sen. Cornyn,
    I originally wrote you concerning my opposition to US involvement in the Syrian Civil War and gave various reasons for same.
    You kindly replied with a form letter containing your opinions, most of which are at distinct odds with mine. While I am strongly opposed to US involvement in the Syrian conflict, you are strongly in favor of it. For that reason, I am considering whether to classify you as a warmonger, in the same category as Sen. McCain.
    Rather than deal in generalities and classifications, perhaps we ought to look at some of the details where we have basic differences of opinion. I will use excerpts from your form letter to control the context of the discussion. For those who wish to view the full text of your form letter, I am sure they can obtain it through your website.

    In the first paragraph of your form letter, you said: On March 18, 2011, the Syrian people commenced widespread and peaceful protests against President Bashar al-Assad and his regime. Subsequently, President Assad and his government forces launched a violent response.

    My comment: You are stating that the Syrian government responded to peaceful protests with violence. How do you know that? Do you know who fired the first shot or who threw the first Molotov cocktail? Let's assume that the sources of violence is untraceable, but that in fact violence is being used by both sides. As a member of the US government, would you anticipate using violence against a violent rebel attack or would you immediately capitulate?
    You said : According to the United Nations, as of April 2013, the death toll in Syria is likely over 93,000.  The violent oppression by the Assad regime continues unabated, with the regime failing to deliver promised reforms and instead utilizing overwhelming force against the protestors.
    My comment: 93,000 people is a lot of people to die. One of the objectives of war is to kill people. In our own Civil War, we had a tremendous number of deaths. Was there justification for the US Civil War? Was one side more justified than the other? Did one side commit atrocities, while the other did not? Would you say that in the US Civil War there was violent oppression by the Union? What promised reforms has Assad failed to deliver? I we really talking about a new form of liberty in Syria or are we talking about another form of dictatorial government?

     In your second paragraph, you said: Pres. Obama has called for Syrian president Assad's resignation.

    My comment: What right does Pres. Obama have to make this request? Pres. Obama was elected President of the United States, not the world's policeman. Syria is none of his business.

    You said: Pres. Obama drew a line in the sand indicating that he would become involved in Syria if chemical weapons were used, and you want that backed up with force, since there appears to be positive use of chemical weapons.
    My comment: Pres. Obama should never have made such a statement. There's basically no difference between killing people with rifle shots, bombs chemicals, starvation, disease and the other forms traditionally used in war. The nature of war is to kill people. The most effective ways possible should be used. However in this case I see no justification for the US war. The Syrian Civil War is none of our business.

    In your third paragraph, you said: You want the US government to stop purchasing helicopters from Rosoboronexport, a Russian arms broker, for US gifts to the Afghanistan military.
    My comment: You're on the right track but for the wrong reason. We should not be in an Afghanistan war, nor should we be supplying military equipment to Afghanistan anymore than we should be supplying military equipment to Syria.
    You say: The Russian arms broker facilitates arms transfers to Syria, for which reason we should be boycotting doing business with the same Russian arms broker.
    My comment: What's wrong with a Russian arms broker sending military equipment to Syria? That's it's business. Are you surprised that arms brokers sell military equipment, or it is just that you want to be the one to decide who they sell to?
    You also say: The Assad regime is murdering its own people.
    My comment: Could you not also say that the rebels are murdering government employees?

    In your fourth paragraph, You said: You were successful in prohibiting the use of funding for the US government to enter into any further contracts or business agreements with Rosoboronexport.
    My comment: I checked the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. You are correct. H.R. 4310—15
Sec. 1277 prohibits use of funds to enter into contracts or agreements with Rosoboronexport. Are you now pleased that you are restricting world trade and denying our military the right to purchase on a worldwide basis the equipment which it feels is most suitable for its use?

 

    Your fifth paragraph says: That despite this law, reports indicate that the Army has entered into a new contract with Rosoboronexport to procure additional helicopters.
    My comment: While I have an initial feeling of satisfaction that your attempted restriction has been unsuccessful, I agree with your implication that "the law is the law". Even a bad law must be followed, until such time as it can be changed. I encourage you to continue pressing this matter with Chuck Hagel, Secretary of Defense. It is either his responsibility to follow the law or come to some other agreement with Congress on the matter. Perhaps a quick modification of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to eliminate Section 1277 would be appropriate.

 

    Your last paragraph says: The people of Syria have demonstrated a hunger for freedom, and the United States has a solemn duty to support their human rights and democratic aspirations.
    My comment: Hogwash! You don't have the faintest idea of what the people of Syria want or need, nor do you have any idea who the rebels are. The US been embarked for many years on nation building programs which have failed in every case, with the possible exception of Israel even that one continues to causes difficulty
    I do not believe in an isolation policy for the US, but I am also much opposed to trying to reestablish foreign governments in our image, when we not even sure what that image is.
    Perhaps you were involved in reestablishing the Egyptian government. I heard on the news this morning that there is now such confusion and disorganization in that society that is likely they may be headed for famine conditions. How are you going to feel when you are at least partially responsible for the starvation of 82 million people, who previously had enough to eat albeit without a possibility of voting for new dictator?