Thousands of USAction members demanded that President Obama seek Congressional approval for any military action in Syria. On Saturday he did just that. We thank the President for making the correct, historic decision. But this plan for a broad, unilateral attack on Syria is a mistake and it's up to us to stop it.
The apparent use of chemical weapons to murder civilians is abhorrent and a frightening escalation of an already brutal campaign by the Assad regime. The Syrian civil war is a tragedy that has already claimed more than 100,000 lives on both sides. But if the U.S. starts dropping bombs, it won't end the violence, change the balance of power or even act as a deterrent against the Assad regime’s brutal actions.1
The American public is opposed to military action and bombing Syria could lead to deeper military engagement down the road.2 We can't let this happen.
Making just one phone call is worth 100 emails to Congress.
Call your Representative and Senators now at 1-855-788-0202 and urge them to OPPOSE the use of military force in Syria. Click here for a script and to report back on how your call went.
President Obama and many leaders are rightly outraged at the use of chemical weapons in Syria. And progressives of good conscience have considered the situation and risks involved and decided to support military action. But we believe that such action creates numerous risks of escalating the conflict, leading to more civilian deaths, possible widening of the conflict outside of Syria and it may not even deter Assad or others from using chemical weapons in the future.
We also agree with this warning from Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) that once "you start a war, nobody's going to tell you that you can limit [it]. Once you get in, all these resolutions mean nothing."3
Diplomatic options are FAR from exhausted and we should aggressively pursue alternatives, build international support and expand humanitarian aid. Wading into a civil war without support from the United Nations and allies is a mistake. That's why Britain, Germany and other nations - even ones that backed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - have said they can't support Obama's plan.4
Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the full Senate will vote soon followed by a vote in the House. Will you call your member of Congress right now, today?
Just dial 1-855-788-0202 and urge them to OPPOSE the use of military force in Syria. Click here for a script and to report back on how your call went.
We've known for a long time, you can't bomb a country into peace, you can only bomb it to pieces. We saw that in Iraq when despite our overwhelming military might, thousands of U.S. military, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and billions of dollars were lost.
We stopped the Iraq War after years and years of struggle. But this time, we have a chance to stop the Syrian War before it starts. If Congress says no to the President's plan now, we can stop the bombs, and give diplomatic options a chance to work. But we need to send them a message FAST.
Making just one phone call is worth 100 emails to Congress. Will you call your Representative and Senators right now, today?
Just dial 1-855-788-0202 and urge them to OPPOSE the use of military force in Syria. Click here for a script and to report back on how your call went.
Sincerely,
Ross Wallen
USAction / TrueMajority
Ross Wallen
USAction / TrueMajority
1 - "The Case Against Military Intervention in Syria," the Nation, September 16, 2013
2 - "The American Public's Views on U.S. Military Intervention in Syria," August 31, 2013
3 - "Pelosi urging more Dem input on Syria," The Hill, September 4, 2013
4 - "Applying the 8 Questions of the Powell Doctrine to Syria," foreignpolicy, September 3, 2013
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Posted By Stephen M. Walt 
Tuesday, September 3, 2013 - 4:38 PM
Remember the Powell doctrine? Elaborated by Colin Powell back in 1990, during his tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it consisted of a series of questions identifying the conditions that should be met before committing U.S. military forces to battle. The questions were:
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 nonviolent 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?
For Powell, each question had to be answered in the affirmative before a decision to use military force was made. If these conditions were met, however, Powell (and other military officers of his generation) believed that the United States should then use sufficient force to achieve decisive victory.
Like the closely related "Weinberger doctrine" (named for Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger), these guidelines were designed to ensure that the United States did not stumble into pointless wars whose costs far outweighed the benefits. Powell understood that civilians often had idealistic or quixotic ideas about improving the world with U.S. military power and that they were often too quick to employ it without thinking through the broader strategic implications. One might think of the Powell doctrine as a checklist designed to curb the well-intentioned but naive desire for global do-gooding that has inspired American liberal interventionists for decades.
The Powell doctrine also rests on a decidedly realist vision of U.S. security and grand strategy. Powell's eight questions implicitly recognize that the United States is an extraordinarily secure country and one that rarely needs to rush into war to keep itself safe. It is a vision of U.S. strategy that does not shrink from using force, but only if vital national security interests are at stake. If they are, then the United States should defend those interests by taking the gloves off and doing whatever it takes. But most of the time vital interests are not at stake, and the United States can and should rely on "other nonviolent policy means." It is a doctrine designed to husband U.S. power and keep the country's powder dry, so that when America does have to go to war, it can do so with ample domestic and international support and with military forces that have not been ground down and degraded by endless interventions in arenas of little strategic importance.
What do we learn if we apply Powell's principles to the current debate on Syria? Just ask and answer the questions, giving the administration the benefit of the doubt. The results are not pretty.
1. Vital national interests at stake? Hardly. The United States hasn't cared who governed Syria since 1970, and it did business with Bashar al-Assad's regime whenever doing so suited it. If it didn't matter who ran Syria for the past 40-plus years, why does it suddenly matter so much now? Nor is defending the norm against chemical weapons a "vital" interest, given that other states have used them in the past and they are not true weapons of mass destruction anyway.
2. Clear obtainable objective? Nope. If you can figure out what the Obama administration's actual objective is -- defend the chemical weapons norm? reinforce U.S. credibility? weaken the regime a little but not a lot? send a warning to Iran?, etc. -- you have a better microscope than I do.
3. Costs and risks analyzed fully and frankly? Well, maybe. I'm sure people in the administration have talked about them, though it is hard to know how "fully" the risks and costs have been weighed. But let's be generous and give the administration this one.
4. Other nonviolent policy options exhausted? Hardly. As I've noted before, there has been a dearth of imaginative diplomacy surrounding the Syrian conflict ever since it began. Oddly, the administration seems to have thought this whole issue wasn't important enough to warrant energetic diplomacy, but it is important enough to go to war. And there in a nutshell is a lot of what's wrong with U.S. foreign policy these days.
5. Plausible exit strategy to avoid entanglement? Not that I can see. Barack Obama, John Kerry, et al. seem to recognize the danger of a quagmire here, so their "exit strategy" consists of limiting the U.S. attack to airstrikes and cruise missiles and maybe some increased aid to the rebels. In other words, they are preemptively "exiting" by not getting very far in. But that also means that intervention won't accomplish much, and it still creates the danger of a slippery slope. If the action they are now contemplating doesn't do the job, what then? If credibility is your concern, won't those fears increase if the United States takes action and Assad remains defiant?
6. Have the consequences been fully considered? It's hard to believe they have. Whacking Assad's forces won't do that much to restate any "red lines" against chemical weapons use, and as noted above, that's a pretty modest objective in any case. But military action might also help bring down the regime, thereby turning Syria into a failed state, fueling a bitter struggle among competing ethnic, sectarian, and extremist groups, and creating an ideal breeding and training ground for jihadists. It may also undercut the moderate forces who are currently ascendant in Iran, derail any chance of a diplomatic deal with them (which is a far more important goal), and even reinforce Iran's desire for a deterrent of its own. Is there any evidence that Obama, Kerry, Rice & Co. have thought all these things through?
7. Support from the American people? No, no, and no. Surveys show overwhelming public opposition to military action in Syria. Obama can boost those numbers with some saber-rattling and threat-inflation (now under way), but the American people are going to remain skeptical. I suspect Congress will eventually go along -- for a variety of reasons -- but right now the idea of going to war in Syria is even less popular than Congress itself (which is saying something). Bottom line: This criterion is nowhere near being met.
8. Genuine and broad international support? Not really. The British Parliament has already voted against military action, and Germany has made it clear that it's not playing either. Russia and China are of course dead set against. America's got the French (oh boy!), the Saudis, and (quietly) the Israelis, along with the usual coalition of the cowed, coerced, or co-opted. But it's a far cry from the support the United States had in the first Gulf War or when it initially entered Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. This is not the sort of "genuine and broad" support that General Powell had in mind.
I draw two conclusions from this exercise. First, the case for military action in Syria remains weak, and the fact that the United States is barreling headlong toward that outcome anyway is a powerful indictment of its foreign policy and national security establishment. Second, Colin Powell was really onto something when he laid out this framework, and the United States would be in much better shape today had that framework guided U.S. military responses for the past 20 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment