The PJRC

The Democracy Journal
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 benefit the PJRC now! 

    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.
      Friday
      Sep062013

      Syria Emergency Letter to Congress

      The Progressive Democrats of America originally sent this emergency letter to Congress out on September 4, 2013. Please join Tom and the PDA in this letter drop by downloading Tom's letter, editing with your name, the name of your Representative or Senator and your chapter (if you are in one).

      Once you have delivered it then please contact PDA. They will let their phone and fax teams know that the letter has been dropped. 

      Thank you,

      The Peace and Justice Resource Center

      ---

      Dear Congress,

      We appreciate President Obama's decision to seek the advice and consent of Congress in making the decision whether to strike Syria in response to the lethal gas attacks of Aug. 21. We look forward to a
      full public debate as Congress fulfills its constitutional obligation. We hope that all relevant questions are answered before a decision is made, and that there will be neither a rush to judgment nor a march to folly.

      President Obama's proposed military authorization is simply too broad and open-ended. After debate and amendments, the final decision may be between [1] a narrower authorization limited in scope and timing, or [2] an authorization endorsing forceful diplomacy as the primary policy of the US towards the Syrian conflict. It is even possible that the authorization will fail due to intractable differences among the parties in Congress.

      Progressive Democrats generally oppose any military escalation likely to deepen the quagmire or set off a spiral of further escalation. Progressive Democrats generally favor forceful diplomacy instead of
      force uncoupled from meaningful diplomacy. Progressive Democrats are mindful that every cruise missile flying towards Damascus represents one million dollars that could be invested in health care, education, or the fight against climate change. And progressive Democrats worry about the rise of an Imperial Presidency which smothers democratic decision-making in the fog of secret wars.

      Therefore we oppose any Congressional military authorization and favor instead a forceful diplomacy based on path to a cease-fire and power-sharing arrangements under international supervision.

      To those who claim that America's global credibility reputation is on the line, we say that we must act to save America from its recent reputation for unnecessary, unaffordable and unwinnable wars.

      We ask why in recent days our government should be readying missiles to attack a Syrian dictatorship for massacring innocent civilians when we are funding and supporting an Egyptian dictatorship that massacres innocent civilians in Cairo. No wonder our credibility is in question.
      Our power is out of alignment with any discernible purpose in the eyes of most Americans.

      We offer these thoughts as the debate proceeds.

      First, it is necessary to complete a thorough investigation of the Syrian gas attacks using the most objective and rigorous standard of proof.
      There is no question that the deployment of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians on Aug. 21 was a violation of international morality and law. But if substantial questions remain, after a thorough
      investigation, as to who was actually responsible for the attack, a US decision to launch military action against the Assad government, army or bases should be deferred, out of respect for what our Declaration of Independence calls the "decent opinion of mankind".

      Second, take seriously the role of multilateral alliances.
      The United Nations Security Council will not approve of a military action against Syria. Nor does the UN Secretary-General who personally says there is no military solution. No does the Arab League endorse military action. The British government has been shaken by dissent. The Germans are silent. Only France, the former colonial power, favors military action. How does it benefit America power or reputation to act in such virtual isolation?

      Third, do not be drawn into the trap of escalation.
      Massive pressure now is being exerted to escalate the conflict in order to offset the perceived battlefield advantages of the Assad regime. But as John F. Kennedy observed, military escalation is like drinking to an alcoholic. One drink leads to another while the corpses mount. If we strike Syria, we only invite escalation and a wider war. Or as Gen. Dempsey observed in his letter to Sen. Levin, "once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid." We should ask ourselves, who benefits from deeper involvement in what could be a permanent quagmire, and at what costs?

      Fourth, forceful diplomacy is more important than force without diplomacy.
      We should escalate morally, politically and diplomatically against the Assad dictatorship while insisting that Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all Assad's allies terminate their military assistance in what has become an ugly sectarian proxy war. Congress should call for an immediate cease-fire in place and diplomacy aimed at an interim power-sharing arrangement in a new Syria. President Obama should be armed with that message in his forthcoming summits in Europe and St. Petersburg. It is striking that President Obama has suspended a summit with Vladimir Putin over the case of whistleblower Edward Snowden while applying no such pressure to cut off the flow of Russian arms to Assad in pursuit of a cease-fire. It is equally telling that US diplomatic hostility towards Iran prevents seeking an accommodation over Syria.

      All talk of sovereignty aside, Syria is a broken country composed of a Sunni majority ruled over by an untenable royal dynasty representing a privileged Alawite/Shi'a minority. All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put the Assad kingdom back together again. The battle in Syria has inflamed and attracted the Sunni minority in Iraq. Al Qaeda is not the cause of these ethno-religious uprisings, but is the malignant offspring.

      Fifth, begin a national conversation about the incoherence of America's Middle East policy. Widen the conversation beyond the traditional national security elite.
      The consistent thread of our policy should be towards greater democracy, equity and citizen participation in the region. But again and again, however, our policy reflects a double standard, or even multiple standards. To a certain extent, this pragmatism is understandable, but it is incomprehensible that our government funds the massacre of innocent Egyptian civilians by generals who overthrew an elected government, while at the same time threatening to bomb a Syrian

      dictatorship for the same massacring of civilians. We inflict drone punishment on Taliban sanctuaries while offering military protections for oil monarchies. It is this double standard which radicalizes so many people in the region towards jihad by providing evidence for what is taught in madrassas.

      Democracy and conflict resolution, not religious power struggles, competition over oil, or blind support of the Israeli Right, should be the steady standard of American foreign policy.

      If Congress should approve a military authorization for bombing Syria, one thing is certain. Another military action, and another congressional debate, are likely to happen again. The conversation we
      need will resume again. That is why Congress should seize the opportunity, in the tradition of the Fulbright and Church hearings of decades ago, to create an accountable public forum for the public
      debate over war and peace. Other forums of civic society should be energized to join the public debate in the spirit of the "teach ins" which spread across our campuses in response to the Vietnam escalation of 1965.

      The conflicts in the Middle East are only the foreign policy focal point of this debate over democracy and security. At home the shadow of a new Imperial Presidency has arisen in response to the militarized foreign policy crisis. The drone wars have escalated behind a curtain of secrecy. CIA secret operations proliferate. Our government is launching offensive and defensive cyber war operations. Big Data has enabled Big Brother spying on a scale unimagined. Whistleblowers are
      hounded. None of this has occurred with proper Congressional debate, decision and concurrence. Instead the public sphere meant for democratic dialogue is left to the underwhelming oversight of secret courts and intelligence committees who are bound not to speak of what they know.

      We need congressional resistance to this loss of democratic and constitutional power. Congress, which is closest to the voting public under our governing arrangements, is meant to share the war-making power with the executive state, raise and expend taxes for national defense, and conduct oversight over every branch of the federal bureaucracy. Congress was never meant to be a junior partner in collaboration with the executive, but an independent check on the excessive power of the state. The battle to stop an escalation over Syria is only the next chapter of the longer struggle to enrich democracy in America.

      In peace,

      Tom E. Hayden

      Please download this letter to Congress.

      PrintView Printer Friendly Version

      EmailEmail Article to Friend

      Reader Comments (1)

      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
      Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.