WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER, and there is a better way to deal with the terrorism of isis and a host of other groups and organizations in the Middle East, Maghreb and Arabian peninsula. Here is My representative's (Rep Gerry Connolly D VA) inadequate response to my e mail to him opposing expanding US Military involvement in Iraq and Syria. He voted to support Pres Obama's war, to support the military-industrial complex and other war profiteers. He voted to sacrifice American lives and our tax dollars. He deliberately lies when he says his isis and the other terrorist groups are a real threat to the security of the U.S. The are a threat to corporate America's profit margins from the business they conduct with the brutal, dictatorial, undemocratic regimes of our false "allies" in these regions. This is followed by Jim Wallis' post on +Sojourners against this march to war.....
September 19, 2014
Thank
you
for
contacting
me
regarding
the
threat
posed
by
the
Islamic
State
of
Iraq
and
the
Levant
(ISIL)
and
similarly
violent
terrorist
groups.
I
appreciate
your
interest
in
this
issue,
and
your
views
are
important
to
me.
The
President
has
laid
out
a
bold
and
decisive
strategy
to
lead
a
multilateral
operation
designed
to
degrade
and
ultimately
destroy
ISIL,
and
I
believe
Congress
has
a
constructive
and
collaborative
role
to
play
in
this
effort.
This
is
a
threat
the
United
States
must
address.
ISIL's
program
of
genocide
is
undermining
the
stability
of
Iraq,
threatening
our
partners
in
the
Iraqi
Kurdistan
Region,
and
reversing
gains
made
by
moderate
forces
in
Syria
against
a
brutal
dictator.
In
response
to
the
President's
consultation
with
Congress
on
the
deepening
crisis
in
Syria,
almost
one
year
ago
to
the
day,
I
introduced
a
resolution
authorizing
the
President
to
carry
out
airstrikes
against
the
Assad
regime.
In
that
instance,
Congress
demurred.
I
believe
the
President
will
now
find
bipartisan
support
in
Congress
for
airstrikes
in
Iraq
and
Syria.
This
tactic
has
thus
far
effectively
bolstered
our
partners
on
the
ground,
protected
American
assets,
and
facilitated
humanitarian
missions.
I
expect
a
robust
debate
regarding
the
plan
to
arm
opposition
forces
in
Syria.
It
may
prove
to
be
the
most
challenging
task
we
face,
moving
forward. As
the
President
stated,
we
must
remain
vigilant
against
terrorist
threats
to
America
and
its
allies.
As
a
senior
member
of
the
House
Committee
on
Foreign
Affairs,
I
will
be
monitoring
this
issue
closely
to
ensure
that
actions
taken
by
the
United
States
are
in
the
best
interest
of
our
national
security.
Once
again,
thank
you
for
expressing
your
concern
on
this
very
important
issue.
I
appreciate
hearing
from
you. For
more
information
on
my
views
on
other
issues,
please
feel
free
to
visit
my
website
at http://connolly.house.gov.
I
also
encourage
you
to
visit
the
website
to
sign
up
for
my
e-newsletter.
Gerald E. Connolly
Member of Congress
11th District, Virginia
War Is Not the Answer
by Jim Wallis 09-11-2014 | 5:04pm
That was a bumper sticker
Sojourners published at the outset of the Iraq war more than a decade
ago. American church leaders had not only opposed the war but offered an
alternative: "An Alternative to War for Defeating Saddam Hussein, A Religious Initiative." We
not only presented it to Colin Powell’s personal council and Tony
Blair, but also printed full-page ads in every major British newspaper
the day before their Parliamentary debate and vote on the war. The
U.K.’s Secretary of State for International Affairs, Clair Short, told
me the only real alternative on the table in their Cabinet meetings was
“The American church leaders’ plan,” which, she said, was seriously
discussed. U.S. and U.K. leaders showed they were drawn to an
alternative plan to war that would remove any weapons of mass
destruction that Saddam Hussein might have had (which he did not) and
even to ultimately remove him from power but without going to war. Pope
John Paul II was also opposed to the potential war. Both the Vatican and
the American church leaders warned that the potential costs of a war in
Iraq could include increasing the scope and threats of international
terrorism. ISIS is that sad prophecy come true; the habit of war
prevailed.
I have always believed that any alternative to war
must still address the very real problems at hand — just in a more
effective way. To say that “war is not the answer” is not only a moral
statement but also is a serious critique of what doesn’t work; wars
often fail to solve the problems and ultimately make them worse. War has
to answer to metrics, just as more peaceful alternatives do. The war in
Iraq was a complete failure with enormous human and financial costs;
ISIS is now one of the consequences.
Yesterday I spoke at a very creative non-partisan conference at the American Enterprise Institute on finding a new approach to end poverty. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw all the press cameras — until I realized they were only there to cover Dick Cheney’s news conference on how America should respond to ISIS in the room next door. Dana Milbank in The Washington Post said:
I agree with Pope Francis when he said it is legitimate to stop an unjust aggressor:
President Obama spoke to the “unique brutality” of ISIS, destroying all who are in their path, including children; turning women into sex slaves; perpetrating genocide against religious minorities, including Christians; beheading their enemies,; and turning foreigners into hardened fighters who could bring their terror back to other countries around the world. ISIS clearly revels in its own brutality by eagerly putting it all up on YouTube. I would add religious “blasphemy” to the crimes of ISIS, doing their proud brutal deeds in the name of God — which is an utter offense to all people of faith.
That the world, including the United States, needs to respond decisively to the real threats of ISIS is beyond dispute, but the practical and moral question is — how? Let’s remember the principle that alternatives to war must answer the questions that war promises to answer — but in a better way.
I give President Obama credit for wanting to respond in a “different way” than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His strategy will focus on air strikes but also relies on supporting and training Middle East partners on the ground, which will be necessary to defeat a force already as powerful as ISIS.
But who those partners will be is still a huge question at this point. All our potential allies are on one side or the other of the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, which produces very different visions for the future of the Middle East. Air strikes will always kill innocent civilians, which will fuel the hatred of the outside superpower and be used to recruit more terrorists. And the 1,600 American troops who will soon be in Iraq will have to stand with their “boots” someplace, which will be more likely “on the ground” than in hotel rooms and offices.
To forge solutions to conflict that are an alternative to the endless and failed habits of war demands a much stronger set of other strategies — which the White House has yet to fully understand or embrace. I applaud the president for seeking a multi-national coalition and a more international approach. But that could have begun with the United Nations, where the U.S. will chair the Security Council in just two weeks — rather than taking the American plan to the U.N. for support. Strong U.N. leadership could both recruit more Middle East partners and help take the United States out of the role of the most hated target of Islamic fundamentalism.
Aggressive diplomacy and the willingness to impose crippling economic sanctions are both necessary if we are ever to find alternatives to war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Emirates have yet to be held accountable — for their enormous inequalities and injustices that have spawned terrorism and for their export of hateful ideologies and funding support for jihadist groups. Stifling money for terrorist groups must extend to any and all nations, businesses, or organizations with any connections to the flow of that lethal money.
Ultimately, we won’t see an end to our “war on terrorism” without dealing with the underlying causes, and not just targeting the consequences of growing terrorism. We must address the world of oil that the West has created, that has literally defined nations, changed geography, and institutionalized the injustices and hypocrisies that breeds the grievances of terrorism. Having justified the unjust structure of that oil world to accommodate our addiction to fossil fuels has produced both a profound threat to our planet and the rise of an angry terrorism that threatens our own children. We must address the fact that 60 percent of the Middle East population is under 30 years of age, and many of them are unemployed, uneducated, aggrieved, and angry young men — too easily drawn to the rhetoric of revenge. To overcome terrorism we must address the grievances that give rise to it and are exploited by hateful extremists.
Again, we must address all of these causes. War and more war will not be able to solve any of it.
Sojourners magazine Jan.-Feb. 2003 cover
Yesterday I spoke at a very creative non-partisan conference at the American Enterprise Institute on finding a new approach to end poverty. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw all the press cameras — until I realized they were only there to cover Dick Cheney’s news conference on how America should respond to ISIS in the room next door. Dana Milbank in The Washington Post said:
“It was just like the good old days. Scooter Libby was in the front row. Paul Wolfowitz was in the second. And on the stage was Dick Cheney, beating the drums of war.”Yet again, Cheney railed against President Obama in a “pre-buttal” to the president’s speech coming that night. Cheney’s strategy, along with others like John McCain and Bill Kristol, calls for serial American invasions and continued occupations in every Middle Eastern country where there is conflict — one after another. Milbank concluded, “In summary: War, war and more war.”
I agree with Pope Francis when he said it is legitimate to stop an unjust aggressor:
"I underscore the verb 'to stop'. I am not saying 'bomb' or 'make war', but 'stop him.' The means by which he can be stopped must be evaluated. Stopping the unjust aggressor is legitimate."This morning, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski agreed, saying the war 10 years ago “was a monumental disaster for which we are still paying.”
President Obama spoke to the “unique brutality” of ISIS, destroying all who are in their path, including children; turning women into sex slaves; perpetrating genocide against religious minorities, including Christians; beheading their enemies,; and turning foreigners into hardened fighters who could bring their terror back to other countries around the world. ISIS clearly revels in its own brutality by eagerly putting it all up on YouTube. I would add religious “blasphemy” to the crimes of ISIS, doing their proud brutal deeds in the name of God — which is an utter offense to all people of faith.
That the world, including the United States, needs to respond decisively to the real threats of ISIS is beyond dispute, but the practical and moral question is — how? Let’s remember the principle that alternatives to war must answer the questions that war promises to answer — but in a better way.
I give President Obama credit for wanting to respond in a “different way” than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His strategy will focus on air strikes but also relies on supporting and training Middle East partners on the ground, which will be necessary to defeat a force already as powerful as ISIS.
But who those partners will be is still a huge question at this point. All our potential allies are on one side or the other of the 1,400-year-old Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict, which produces very different visions for the future of the Middle East. Air strikes will always kill innocent civilians, which will fuel the hatred of the outside superpower and be used to recruit more terrorists. And the 1,600 American troops who will soon be in Iraq will have to stand with their “boots” someplace, which will be more likely “on the ground” than in hotel rooms and offices.
To forge solutions to conflict that are an alternative to the endless and failed habits of war demands a much stronger set of other strategies — which the White House has yet to fully understand or embrace. I applaud the president for seeking a multi-national coalition and a more international approach. But that could have begun with the United Nations, where the U.S. will chair the Security Council in just two weeks — rather than taking the American plan to the U.N. for support. Strong U.N. leadership could both recruit more Middle East partners and help take the United States out of the role of the most hated target of Islamic fundamentalism.
Aggressive diplomacy and the willingness to impose crippling economic sanctions are both necessary if we are ever to find alternatives to war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Emirates have yet to be held accountable — for their enormous inequalities and injustices that have spawned terrorism and for their export of hateful ideologies and funding support for jihadist groups. Stifling money for terrorist groups must extend to any and all nations, businesses, or organizations with any connections to the flow of that lethal money.
Ultimately, we won’t see an end to our “war on terrorism” without dealing with the underlying causes, and not just targeting the consequences of growing terrorism. We must address the world of oil that the West has created, that has literally defined nations, changed geography, and institutionalized the injustices and hypocrisies that breeds the grievances of terrorism. Having justified the unjust structure of that oil world to accommodate our addiction to fossil fuels has produced both a profound threat to our planet and the rise of an angry terrorism that threatens our own children. We must address the fact that 60 percent of the Middle East population is under 30 years of age, and many of them are unemployed, uneducated, aggrieved, and angry young men — too easily drawn to the rhetoric of revenge. To overcome terrorism we must address the grievances that give rise to it and are exploited by hateful extremists.
Again, we must address all of these causes. War and more war will not be able to solve any of it.
Jim Wallis is president of Sojourners. His book, The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel Brings Hope to a World Divided , the updated and revised paperback version of On God’s Side, is available now. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
