We were asked today to vote to go to war, with the intent of stopping the threat posed by the terrorist group ISIS. The vehicle for this measure was an amendment to a budget resolution that will fund the government for the next few months. In other words: vote for this war or shut down the government. Advocates for the amendment tell us that it only allowed the President to redirect money to train and equip Syrian moderate rebels in training camps in Saudi Arabia, who would presumably return to Syria and help us in our fight against ISIS. But here are the facts: the President has already undertaken an extensive bombing campaign in Iraq (the 4th president in a row to do so) and has told the country that he will likely extend this to Syria. And so the strategy, as far as we can piece together is this: we will be training and arming rebels in Saudi Arabia (a country that has produced more extremists and extremism than any other I can think of), reinserting them into Syria, and then will fly combat missions in Syria coordinated with the rebels. U.S. pilots, advisers and potentially special forces will be part of this effort. If that doesnt make us a belligerent in the Syrian civil war, I dont know what does. At a minimum, its clear we will be sending U.S. service members into another country, with whom we havent declared war, in coordination with a group of rebels whose primary goal is to topple the current regime. And the logical conclusion of that policy, if successful, is the overthrow of the Assad regime and the imposition of a new government that will be set up with our aid and support (and direction). While ISIS is the ostensible reason for this action, it is important to remember that the moderate opposition in Syria is not in opposition to ISIS, they are in opposition to Assad. And while they may be fighting against ISIS today, that wasnt the case yesterday and it may not be the case tomorrow. But even if we assume that the rebels stay true to our interests in fighting ISIS, how can they possibly take on the murderous Assad regime and the murderous terrorists of ISIS at the same time? Add to this that General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said yesterday that in addition to the service members flying combat missions, he can envision plausible scenarios where U.S. forces will be on the ground (while not a single regional country will have its own troops joining ours), and you can understand why I have very serious reservations about this strategy. Not the least of which is that a realistic outcome has not been articulated (in other words, what does success look like? what is our exit strategy?). But even if I agreed with the strategy, or thought for all its flaws that it was our last, best choice to confront the growing threat posed by ISIS --- I could not allow us to vote to enter this war through a budget amendment, one that prohibits Congress from addressing the full scope of the proposed military plans and our entry into another countrys civil war. We owe our President wide latitude on issues of foreign policy. However, the Constitution makes it clear that only Congress can declare war. That makes going to war much harder, and involves much more thought, deliberation and debate -- but I think our founders envisioned that such a solemn, important decision should be made in no other way. For those reasons I voted no on the amendment and the amended resolution which passed the House. I continue to read your comments and emails on this and will keep them in mind as we look at further action in Iraq and Syria to confront the threat posed by ISIS. Thank you for taking the time to read this and for sharing your thoughts with me. youtu.be/qIw7sSrDASE
Posted on: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 01:52:47 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015