It looks increasingly like a moot point, but since I previously mentioned it, I wanted to confirm that my own Representative, John Carter, is a firm “No” on bombing Syria, as per this letter from him:
Dear Mr. Person:
Thank you for contacting me about President Obama’s proposal to launch a military strike against Syria.
President Obama has asked Congress to authorize a U.S. military strike in the wake of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces use of chemical weapons on August 21, 2013.
My constituents and the majority of Americans have voiced their opposition to this ill-conceived proposal and I stand with them. The President has not provided a solid reason as to why he believes the United States should attack the sovereign nation of Syria or how this action would deter al-Assad in the future. A political agenda is no reason to put our sons and daughters in danger or involve our country in another costly war while dealing with a budgetary crisis, the President’s damaging sequester and reduced troop levels.
The lack of a legitimate foreign policy since the beginning of this administration has placed America into the situation we face today. I believe the President’s decision to attack Syria is not based on defending the security of our nation, but is based on defending his political agenda and his ‘red line’. The administration’s plan to support and aid the rebel faction which include members of Al Qaeda and the assumptions that they will call America their friend after attacking President Bashar al-Assad is a misguided strategy at best. There are many issues that the country should be focused on and kicking a hornets’ nest is not one of them.
Nothing has proven President Obama’s proposal would be effective and he has not given specific timetables for a resolution to the crisis. I believe we should work with the world community through diplomatic measures that will protect others from the deplorable use of chemical weapons. The central question for policy makers remains how best to bring the conflict in Syria to a close before the crisis consigns the region to one of several destructive and destabilizing scenarios.
You can be sure I will keep your strong views in mind as I monitor developments in Syria and surrounding regions. If given the opportunity to vote on this matter, I will oppose the President’s dangerous request. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Please feel free to visit my website (www.house.gov/carter) or contact me with any future concerns.
Not the Syrian war itself, of course; that grinds on unabated. But Obama’s ill-advised attempt to directly involve the U.S. in it seems to have been derailed.
Now, instead of the fig leaf of an unbelievably small attack on Syria to assuage Obama’s wounded ego over Assad waltzing all over his red line with a chemical weapons attack, now he gets to climb down thanks to the fig leaf of what will be a laughable, easily circumvented UN supervision of whatever chemical stockpiles Assad wants to turn over to them. We’ve seen how ridiculously ineffective UN oversight was in Iraq even with US force to back it up; there’s no reason to assume it will be any more effective in Syria.
But make no mistake: This is a better outcome than an attack that would be various parts ill-advised and laughable, depending on the size. Now Obama gets to accomplish exactly as much as he would before (namely nothing) without the risk of going to war.
Obama’s call for attacking Syria is meeting such heavy opposition that he already has a domestic quagmire on his hands getting it approved. Here’s a mini-roundup of Syria news:
I can’t really start quoting this Charles Krauthammer takedown of the incoherence of Obama’s Syrian policy, because there’s so much good stuff here that it will be hard to stop. OK, one quote: “There’s no strategy, no purpose here other than helping Obama escape self-inflicted humiliation.”
There’s a word for what Obama and Kerry want in Syria: War.
Iran wants to attack us if we attack Syria. If this is Obama’s masterful scheme to jujitsu Iran into giving him cover to take out their nuclear program I may have to revise my opinion of him. But how likely is that?
Obama’s serial Syrian blunders. “The only nation contemplating joining the United States in military action is France. That’s 38 fewer allies than joined the United States after the supposed unilateralist George W. Bush, with congressional authorization, ordered troops into Iraq.”
Obama has changed the military’s strike plans against Syria 50 times. Does he think he’s planning the perfect Zerg Rush in Starcraft?
The world set a red line in Syria? Well then, let the world enforce it.
Obama’s road to Damascus. The goal of the POTUS: “ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability, not only to Syria but to the region.” Peace and stability in the Middle East. Well, nothing too naive or ambitious about that goal, is there?
When John Kerry says that the Syrian rebels are “mostly moderates,” he’s using the rhetorical device know as lying.
Lindsey Graham continues his downward spiral into irrelevance by declaring that failure to bomb Iraq would mean an Iran-Israel war within 6 months. Honestly, I’m a lot more enthused about that possibility than us bombing involved in Syria, if only on the off-chance an Israel-Iran war might actually accomplish something.
As I’m not one who credits the left for, well, much of anything, really, let’s give credit where credit is due and give the anti-war types some points for consistency: Moveon.org opposes a strike against Syria.
George Mitchell of The Nation says no thanks as well, citing Obama and Kerry’s many Syrian lies.
Even Obama’s own OAF is twiddling its thumbs rather than voicing support or opposition.
It’s taking a while to get back up to speed after Worldcon, but here’s a little content to prove I’m not dead (just dead tired). And it’s proven a moving target that took longer to put together than I expected
The Hill has an an ongoing whip count on those who oppose or support a strike against Syria. Huffington Post has another count. This is shaping up to be a case of actual Americans on both the left and right opposing Obama’s Big Adventure, while the Permanent Party of Washington Insiders is supporting it.
Texas Congressmen On Record Opposing A Strike On Syria
(if no link from their name, they’re on the Hill or Huff Puff lists) Republicans
So Obama is (maybe) going to be shipping arms to Syrian rebels. I think this is a remarkably bad idea for a number of reasons, none of them that Bashar Assad isn’t a murderous thug who oppresses his own people, supports terrorism, and attacks and destabilizes neighbors like Lebanon and Israel. All that is true, and Assad certainly deserves a bullet in his head for his sins.
But there’s zero compelling evidence that toppling him is in the United State’s best interests, that America has any vital interests at sake in the Syrian civil war, or that al Qaeda-related Islamslist thugs won’t come out on top, impose Sharia law, and export Sunni-branded terrorism every bit as vicious and deadly as Assad’s Shia-backed variety. Indeed, the history of Libya and Egypt suggests that they are likely to be considerably worse. And predicting that Sunni Islamists are likely to come out on top of a post-Assad power struggle is like predicting that guys are going to wake up with no memory of last night in a Hangover sequel: we’ve seen this movie before.
Anyway, here are a few links for the current situation in Syria.
Who makes up the opposition to Assad in Syria? “An array of rebel militias heavily infiltrated by radical Islamists and al Qaida loyalists with no central command.” In other words: exactly who those of us paying attention have said they are.
Michael Totten can’t make heads or tails of Obama’s plans for Syria…including whether we’re actually arming the rebels or not.
Speaking of Totten, he links to this piece that argues. “The Islamic Republic[of Iran]’s headlong intervention in Syria is akin to Nazi Germany’s surge of military forces into the Battle of Stalingrad in the fall of 1942 – an operationally competent, strategic blunder of epic proportions.” Not buying it, especially the part that says “Syrian President Bashar Assad’s ultimate defeat is a foregone conclusion.” His argument of Irnaian-backed losses being unsustainable also sounds remarkably like the “flypaper strategy” some said would kill off the supply of radical Islamists by drawing them to the insurgency and killing them in Iraq, and we all know how well that theory turned out…
And by “an advanced new stealth fighter plane,” I mean “a large plastic RC aircraft that’s obviously not suited for combat, stealth, or actually carrying a pilot.”
“The engine section lacks any kind of nozzle: engine afterburners could melt the entire jet.”
“The cockpit seems to be too small, to such an extent a normal pilot doesn’t properly fit in the ejection seat. Have you ever seen a pilot with his knees above the side borders of the cockpit and his helmet well beyond the ejection seat’s head pad?”
“The canopy lacks transparency and looks like it is made of plexiglass.”
Many viewers have said that the cockpit instrumentation resembles that of a Cessna rather than a fighter aircraft.