CALL TO ACTION: Americans Speak out Against Another War in Syria

“Recently in the news”

• The CIA recently acknowledged that the 1953 coup which toppled a democratically elected government in Iran was carried out “under CIA direction” and “as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government.” The coup installed a US-backed and abusive dictatorship leading to a growing wave of resentment and anti-US sentiment, which contributed greatly to the 1979 revolution which brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power.

• Still in the news this fall is the on-going carnage in Iraq, with car-bombings and thousands dying year after year in the aftermath of a “regime change” operation which was based on lies about “WMDs” in Iraq.

History Covert Operations and “Humanitarian” Military Adventures

• In 1989 the U.S. invaded Panama and removed General Noriega, killing between many hundreds and several thousand Panamanians; earlier, the CIA had for decades, and into the 1980s secretly supported and funded Noriega. The CIA had supported a certain Iraqi officer named Saddam Hussein – the same Hussein who was overthrown in a later invasion leading to hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, with the carnage of the on-going strife being evident in headlines to this day. The same agency sent a huge flow of funds to help arm the most extremist elements they could find in Afghanistan, the Mujahideen, a movement which later spawned the Taliban.

It’s not just the CIA but the “militarists” in general – witness the famous handshake between Rumsfeld and Saddam in 1983, after * Saddam used chemical weapons in the war against Iran sometimes with (we now know) aid from U.S. intelligence.

• TRACK RECORD: With a track record of so many disasters killing so many innocent civilians abroad and encouraging dangerous elements which, far from helping our security, actually make the U.S. less safe, was anything learned? In Syria today, their recipe is: “More of the same.” What’s being contemplated today is not a change from non-intervention to intervention as Kerry claims, but a change from a disastrous covert support for extremist rebels, to more overt support.

• LESSONS: In each case the facts were hidden from the American people and when bits and pieces trickled out, critics were hushed, told by “smart” militarists and covert operatives that know we need to be “practical” and “need” to work with unsavory elements to accomplish some greater goal.

This same thinking, sometimes the same people, today tell us we must be “practical” and work with ultra-fundamentalist extremist insurgents and even Al Qaeda linked rebels in Syria. “What could possibly go wrong?” seems to be their thinking. How many more disasters, billions spent, death and blow-back do we need before stopping another disaster?

These disasters more than likely will take place unless we the people flood the phones and faxes on capitol hill (include number here) [Include the preceding sentence as suggested text for inclusion in Letters to the Editor in all sections]

Framing the debate/the options

• MISDIRECTION: What’s being contemplated today is not a change from non-intervention to intervention as Kerry claims, rather, what’s proposed is a switch-over from the long-standing covert support for extremist rebels by the US and its allies (including US-backed Gulf dictatorships) to more overt support of these same rebels, the strongest elements of whom are ultra-fundamentalist extremist insurgents and even Al Qaeda linked rebels. What could possibly go wrong?

• HISTORY REPEATING. In fact we know what happened when a blind eye was turned to extremist groups in Afghanistan in the 1980s – the Mujahideen, who were armed with CIA funding – the same groups which later spawned the Taliban. The “blind eye” to radical militants, as well as the chaos (and unguarded missiles) in the aftermath of what was always a “regime change” operation in Libya, has been linked to Al Qaeda and other attacks against the U.S.See * It’s known that Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, but was quickly drawn in, encouraged, and strengthened in the aftermath.

• AND REPEATING AND ..? Over and over again, we have been told that we must be “practical” and work with unsavory elements to accomplish a “humanitarian” goal or address some “great evil danger.” Meanwhile, covert actions, which are often secret not from official enemy but kept secret by mainly from the American people themselves by bi-partisan agreement of those who are supposed to represent us — have led to increased anti-US hatred, American deaths by “block-back”, the deaths of many innocent civilians, and the spread of extremists including Al Qaeda linked groups, in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere, with such elements already introduced and funded or aided by either the US or several US-backed authoritarian regimes. Do we really want to strengthen such radical extremist groups in Syria and beyond?

• We should be pressuring all sides to sit down for negotiations in Geneva or elsewhere. Instead, the US has been, incredibly, encouraging rebels to refuse to participate in peace talks and negotiations.

Chemical Weapons

• WHY SABOTAGE INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT YOU CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT? If the use of chemical weapons is a concern, a full investigation absolutely needs to take place and to be given a chance to come to findings. The Syrian government, contrary to Kerry’s insinuations, responded to UN investigators the very next day after the request was made. In any case, there is no “disappearing evidence” – , sarin can be detected in biomedical samples for months after its use, for example * &&diams and it’s “rare” for such an investigation to begin within such a short time, a UN spokesperson noted, adding that “the passage of such few days does not affect the opportunities to collect valuable samples.”

• EVIDENCE TO DATE POINTS AT REBELS. What partial evidence there is so far points at rebels forces. Police in Turkey (a country whose anti-Assad tilt is known, and which has been supplying the rebels) in May found a 2 kilogram cylinder with Sarin in the home in Turkey which was linked to the very same Al-Nusra Front which the US considers a terrorist group, and which just happens to also operate in Syria, is Al Qaeda associated, and militarily dominates the rebel “coalition” which US-backed dictatorial regimes (Saudi Arabia and Qatar) have been helping and unable to differentiate which arms ultimately make their way to whom. Direct or indirect U.S. cover support cannot be ruled out, given our history.*

• MORE EVIDENCE POINTS AT REBELS. In addition, the U.N. by May of this year did find evidence concerning a previous chemical attack. Carla Del Ponte, a leading member of the UN commission of inquiry and herself a former war crimes prosecutor revealed in an interview with Swiss-Italian TV that the UN found “strong, concrete” evidence linking rebels to those chemical attacks. While adding that “we have no indication at all that the government, the Syrian government, used” chemical weapons.*

• DISHONESTY ABOUT MISSION AIMS, AND DANGEROUS, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE MILITARY ADVENTURISM. In a dishonest insult to Americans, Obama and his Republican supporters keep presenting this is not about “regime” change, and promise they are not even trying to “change the balance of power” but their aim to “degrade” the Syrian army is an attempt to do exactly that. Even if we believe that tale that Assad is suicidal enough to have chosen to use chemical weapons right after UN inspectors arrived (at his own invitation) rather than the rebels using the chemical weapons as evidence to date indicates, “limited” strikes will not be able to eliminate chemical weapons. It does risk having such weapons fall into Al Qaeda rebel hands. And without question, it would risk changing balance of power towards the rebel “coalition” which has been admitted to be militarily dominated by the most extremist and Al Qaeda linked insurgents in Syria.

No more “Trust us”, no more Lies

• LONG STRING OF PAST LIES. Our government has “lied us into” military involvements before. They lied about Saddam having “WMDs”. They lied about the “yellowcake” They lied about Saddam being behind 9/11. Our country is not more evil than others: it is the veil of secrecy and lack of accountability that leads to corruption and lies. When a country becomes an Orwellian regime obsessed with secrecy, covert operations and military adventures abroad and a ‘surveillance state’ at home – as ours sadly has – that is when the danger is greatest. When the country in question is the most powerful one in history, as is ours, the costs of “mistakes” and “white lies” leaders justify to themselves, escalate exponentially: the damage to our democracy, to innocent civilian deaths abroad, the cost in U.S. blood from “blow-back” and increased extremism, and the many billions emptied out of our budget in yet another adventure, is that much worse.

• STATED MISSION MAKES NO SENSE, NOT MERELY HYPOCRITICAL, BUT DANGEROUS. It’s time we all say out loud that the Emperor has No Clothes. It’s an open ‘secret’ that the Obama administration and it’s Republican allies, whose past bi-partisan adventures have lead to so much death and destruction, are not acting out of any “humanitarian” concern in Syria but simply trying to overthrow the Syrian government (while actively supporting many “friendly” dictators from Saudi Arabia to Bahrain, Qatar and others). It’s a direct insult to the intelligence of Americans, and an insult to democratic governance, to tell the American people lofty sounding tall tales about “human rights concerns” when investigations are still on-going, and what’s more, when the partial but significant evidence so far has tied rebel forces to the use of chemical weapons. If the evidence strengthened that rebels used chemical weapons, will Kerry call on us to attack the rebels and to launch “limited” military action against their backers in Qatar or Saudi Arabia? What if the backers turn out to be American agencies, or based in Israel or Turkey?

Surely no sane person would advocate bombing those countries But the hypocrisy is remarkable, and the failure to rein in such support for extremist rebels will likely haunt us repeatedly in the coming years, unless we demand our leaders and our allies it end right now, and move from their extremely dangerous “chess game” of regime change to the negotiation table.

• DISHONESTY OF TALK ABOUT “RED LINE” AND: OBAMA MAY BE CROSSING THE MOST DANGEROUS “RED LINE” HIMSELF. It’s as plain as day that “crossed red lines” can’t possibly be the motivation for an attack on Syria given that there’s no proof Syria used chemical weapons, several lines of evidence pointing at the rebels, and independent investigations still on-going. The “Red line” Obama himself is dangerously close to crossing is committing what has been called the “Supreme crime” in international affairs: military aggression against another country. Elite Democratic and Republican leaders seem to hope that “that this time will be different” and we will not have blow-back, simply an (illegal) attack which strongly risks escalating into larger and larger military involvement which will not be a “clean regime change.” The American people do not want Assad replaced by a chaos-filled Syria with years and years of sectarian violence breeding extremism, let alone, for him to be replaced by Al Qaeda linked rebels who have already promised slaughter against Christians and those Muslims not deemed “correct” enough. Assad can and should be pressured (as should all rebel sides) at the negotiation tables, and that is the way towards a less dangerous middle east. This can happen only if we rein in the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, including spy agencies and covert operators who wish to act without the consent of the American people, as well as reigning in leaders on both sides of the isle who seem ready to push us over the precipice of war.

Dangerous and Unintended consequences

• General Anthony Zinni pointed out the lesson that planning for “limited” military involvement is often a fool’s errand: “The one thing we should learn is you can’t get a little bit pregnant” with a “one time” or “limited” military role leading to being “sucked in” more and more over time, into a quagmire. *

• [See other Dangerous/Unintended consequences in "blow-back" examples in other sections]

Miscellaneous points, not organized.

• If some radical advocated that the U.S. be bombed – not carried out or even planned, but merely advocated it – we would take that extremely seriously. If it turns out that the Obama administration and its Republican allies have been advocating bombings — which would certainly lead to some “collateral damage” deaths of innocent civilian women, men, and children — based on false statements, what moral or legal accountability should they face? What additional damage in blow-back and in our international reputation, alienated allies, and increased anti-US sentiment would this rush to bomb cause?

• Princeton Emeritus Law Professor and UN special rapporteur Richard Falk has stated that “We should be worried by the taboo..imposed on any type of self-scrutiny [of U.S. foreign policy] by either the political leadership or the mainstream media..The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world. In some respects, the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks… We should be asking ourselves at this moment, ‘How many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?’ ” [See ForeignPolicyJournal.com, April 21, 2013.]*