The PJRC

The Peace Exchange Bulletin
Search Site
Get Involved
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Support the PJRC

    Support the PJRC for continued original analysis on ending the wars, funding domestic priorities and preserving civil liberties.

    Make a contribution to the PJRC now!

    Make a tax-deductible donation of $25 or more and receive an autographed copy of Tom Hayden's newest book!

    Inspiring Participatory Democracy: Student Movements from Port Huron to Today

    Conferences & Events

    Tom Hayden speaks in Port Huron, MI, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Port Huron Statement.

    Invite Tom Hayden to speak in your town!

    Follow Tom

                    

    Contact Us
    This form does not yet contain any fields.
      Thursday
      Sep052013

      Fooled Again Into Wider War?

      Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Senator John McCain at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate on September 3, 2013. (Photo: LaPress)

      The Syrian war resolution being rushed through Congress conceals an agenda for escalation far beyond President Obama's repeated pledge of a "narrow" and limited "shot across the bow" of the Assad regime. The American public and Congress are being fooled into wider war and regime change by another name.

      How did this happen? Maybe it is the price the president paid for his authorization to pass the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with John McCain's aye vote. McCain clearly hijacked the original bill when he inserted an amendment saying that the purpose of US policy is to "decisively" change the balance of forces on the ground. That does not sound like a shot across the bow, or a limited strike against a chemical weapons unit or facility. It does not sound like the president's original notion of sending a military "message" to Assad without threatening his regime.

      The measure authorizes: two or three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes, aimed at decisively damaging Assad's military bases and infrastructure, increasing the capabilities of the insurgent forces (somehow without strengthening Al Qaeda), and profoundly weakening Assad's capacity to continue in power. The prohibition of "boots" on the ground, so important to Congress, does not cover CIA boots on the ground nor the boots of American advisers and trainers just over the Syrian border.

      How far the escalation will go depends on the laws of war and the role of public opinion. Some in power prefer to leave a weakened Assad on his throne because he has kept the Golan Heights quiet and because his adversaries are feared as an unpredictable array of jihadists. This view was expressed most brutally by an Israeli diplomat in the New York Times, "Let them both bleed: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria." The alternative view is that the dogs of war, when there momentum is unleashed, will devour Assad and create the groundwork for a "new Syria", along the lines of post-Qaddafi Libya. This apocalyptic view was stated by a Syrian rebel in the Los Angeles Times in this way, "If they (the Americans) strike the regime with a crippling hit, we will finish them off."

      Secretary of State John Kerry even already has suggested a role for American ground forces in his Senate testimony, for example in the case of chaos or a takeover by Syrian militants in a vacuum. This was purely "hypothetical" Kerry said, under sharp questioning. Then in his classic way, Kerry retracted his retraction, sort of, by saying that there would be no boots on the ground during "the civil war" phase of the conflict. This statement left open the possibility of American ground troops if and when the Assad regime begins disintegrating. At that point, does anyone seriously believe there would be another Congressional debate?

      The parallel with Iraq is crystal clear. That earlier war was based on false information about "weapons of mass destruction" in the terrifying hands of Saddam Hussein. In an interview, Paul Wolfowitz, one of the war's architects, said that the non-existent weapons were the best argument for mobilizing public opinion and a reluctant Congress. In this war, there seems to be no question that a sarin-type gas attack killed one thousand people, although a UN investigation is incomplete and there are questions about who exactly ordered the attack. That major difference aside, the eerie parallel with Iraq is that the chemical weapons attack is a pretext for expanding the American war in Syria on a much broader basis than is acknowledged.

      The American public deserves a full explanation for what we are expected to support.

      Perhaps regime change is a good idea. But then why not make the argument openly? There can be only one familiar reason: that if the American people and Congress heard what the war-makers have in store, there would be little chance of approving the marching orders. An escalation of America's involvement in the Syrian civil war? If the public currently opposes the missile strikes, imagine the reaction toward an even wider war. The Congressional authorization would be dead on arrival. Better that be the fate of the bill than a single Syrian civilian or American soldier down the road.

      No one knows what the outcome in Congress will be. But it's hard to imagine Democrats embracing McCain's version of Obama's bill, when it's already difficult for them to support the president's narrower original goal. And it's equally problematic to see House Republicans supporting John McCain over senators Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, who voted no in the Senate committee. The combination of Obama and McCain together could be far too much for the Tea Party to swallow.

      The first casualty in politics and war, it turns out, is the truth. Before too many days pass, the true scale of the proposed escalation should be revealed and debated. That's what the war-makers, in their haste, may fear the most.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (2)

      Tom Hayden can claim success.

      The American electorate has done exactly what he hoped for when he called for Obama's re-election in 2012. The public is overwhelmingly opposed to any military strike in Syria, and they have let their Senators and Representatives know that. The calls nationwide are coming in at over 95% opposed, or more. Pollsters have never seen such deep and wide opposition to a proposed presidential action. This is unprecedented. People are angry and they are raising their voices on this issue.

      So, is President Obama reacting as Tom Hayden predicted? Is Obama listening to the public and respecting their wishes to avert a military strike? No, sad to say.

      In fact, he's doing just the opposite.

      Obama has re-doubled his efforts to convince and coerce Congressmembers to vote for the military authorization.

      His White House spokespeople have flooded the airwaves to support his plan to launch missiles.

      Even though Obama and his advisers admit that they do not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the Assad regime's complicity, they still claim that they are "certain that Assad is guilty of using chemical weapons against his own people", and must be punished.

      White House officials urge people to rely on "common sense" to come to the same conclusion -- when common sense can just as easily lead to the conclusion that Assad did not use chemical weapons.

      Even more revealing, Obama has actually encouraged members of Congress to ignore the voices of their constituents if they personally want to support this war. Obama's advisers have also indicated that there is a significant likelihood that the president will ignore the will of Congress if it votes against him, and he will order a military attack on Syria even without public support or the backing of the Congress.

      And all of this occurs as President Obama readily admits that there is "no imminent threat" against the United States from Syria -- which means that any attack would be in violation of international law and the United Nations charter, whether or not Congress supports it.

      So, here we are.

      Is Tom Hayden willing to admit that he was misled by Barack Obama? Will he admit that he was wrong to urge progressives to support Obama in 2008 and 2012? Will he admit that Obama is nothing but a corporate representative, doing the bidding of his military-industrial backers?

      It's either that, or Hayden should admit that he was primarily a corporate Democratic Party supporter all along, and he was playing a role just to make sure Obama retained power. He can't have it both ways, that's for sure. Which is it? Will Tom Hayden be honest with his supporters now?

      The lesser evil is still very, very evil. And Hayden helped put the lesser evil in office. He shares responsibility with Obama for the economic devastation he continues to wreak on the poor and middle class in the US. He shares responsibility with Obama for the destruction of our civil liberties, and for his illegal surveillance programs. And he will share responsibility for each death and injury that may be caused by Obama's threatened military attacks.

      These are the real-world impacts that have directly resulted from Tom Hayden's political actions. Will he own up to them? We shall see.

      Satya

      September 9, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterSatya

      It seems that Russia and Syria may have called the Administration's bluff by taking Secretary Kerry up on his off-hand and hedging remark about putting Syrian government chemical weapons under UN control for possible subsequent destruction in order to avoid a US strike. If the Administration ignores this acceptance by the Assad regime and refuses to negotiate the offer seriously but goes ahead and strikes Syria anyway, then it will show quite clearly that the Administration's stated concern about chemical weapons was simply a pretext for bombing, with its real motives more obscure. So, it is now incumbent on the American peace movement to push the Administration to accept the Assad regime's offer and to work within the UN framework to see that it is adequately implemented. And, why not put all chemical weapons in the Middle East and even in the whole world under UN control?

      September 10, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterAlice Leuchtag
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.