My son and I tend to have important discussions in the car — rides to school early the morning or just running errands to the comic store, his allowance burning a hole in his pocket. And yes, we don’t shy away from uncomfortable or complicated topics … so lately it’s been about Syria and what the United States should do. I’d like to think I’ve raised my son to help people or at least feel it’s important to help people. I hope I’ve raised my son to have an open heart toward people who are different from us or even people who live clear across the other side of the world.
So when he turns to me in the car and says, “Shouldn’t we help the people of Syria?” or “Isn’t it time that we help the people of Syria?,” I’m having a difficult time answering his questions because, while I understand where his 12-year-old heart is coming from, I can’t agree and I’m having a hard time explaining why.
Saying it’s complicated feels like a cop out, but I can’t completely buy surgical precision strikes or the fact that since chemical weapons were used now is the time we should intervene. I keep thinking about Iraq and those weapons of mass destruction … and all the other bullshit we seem to have swallowed as citizens the past 14 years or so.
I keep thinking about this image I remember seeing when President Clinton was still in office, presenting a plaque to the president of Rwanda, five years after that country’s genocide, in Air Force One. I tried to find that image to post here, but couldn’t. I don’t think I imagined it, because I clearly remember seeing that photograph and instantly feeling shame because I wondered why we did nothing to stop what was taking place there or in Bosnia or … on and on.
“How do we make decisions on who we help, who we don’t help and when to finally respond?,” I asked my son. “Rebel forces in Syria have been begging for intervention, but why do we intervene now?” “But mom, isn’t it better than not intervening at all,” my son said back to me.
Then early this week I stumbled on the video from Democracy Now! that discussed the skyrocketing number of children born with major birth defects and skyrocketing cancer rates in Iraq since US troops arrived there — the rates linked to the US military use of depleted uranium in its ammunition. So, even limited targeted strikes, whatever that means, used in Syria, I can’t get the images out of mind of those children born in Fallujah.
Maybe you should take a look yourself (please note: this video is incredibly unpleasant, so we put it below the cut):
A recent conversation with a close friend is also on my mind — a criticism of the media coverage on intervening in Syria. After looking what we have in Iraq and recalling the past coverage, “why should the media pundits and experts present themselves as if they are credible?” He has a point. Remember Judith Miller and her early coverage in the New York Times?
But then I read a press release from a group called MapLight (describes itself as a “nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that reveals money’s influence on politics”) that arrived yesterday on the Sept. 4 Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote of 10-7 to approve a resolution authorizing military force in Syria that allows Obama to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and specified manner” for 60 days with an optional extension for another 30 days.
MapLight used OpenSecrets.org data from Political Action Committee’s of defense contractors and analysis of employee contributions to look at the defense industry’s interests and influence to current members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2007-2012 and guess what?
You probably guessed correctly:
Senators voting “YES” to authorize the use of military force in Syria have received, on average, 83 percent more money from defense contractors and other defense interests than senators voting “NO” on the use of military force.
Senators voting “YES” on authorization received, on average, $72,850 from the defense industry.Senators voting “NO” on authorization received, on average, $39,770 from the defense industry.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., has received $176,300 from defense contractors and other defense interests, more than any other member of the committee. He voted “YES” on the resolution.
The yes men:
John McCain R AZ $176,300
Dick Durbin D IL $127,350
Timothy Kaine D VA $101,025
Ben Cardin D MD $80,550
Bob Corker R TN $70,850
Bob Menéndez D NJ $60,000
Jeanne Shaheen D NH $41,872
Jeff Flake R AZ $26,900
Barbara Boxer D CA $24,150
Chris Coons D DE $19,500
Yesterday, Mother Jones reported that during an intelligence briefing held for members of Congress, only a few dozen members showed up and mostly Democrats, to discuss war on Syria. Members of Congress have said they want more time to study the issue, but only a few dozen showed up:
If the information discussed in the briefing was meant to be a game-changer for the (at last count) 106 congressmen and 53 senators who remain undecided, it fell short of its target. None of the members who entered on-the-fence seemed to emerge much closer to a final decision—with the exception of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), who released a statement shortly afterward saying he’d vote against the resolution. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said “there are many considerations.” Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) said he’s “still collecting [his] thoughts.” Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Tex.) said “this is an opportunity for Americans to stand together,” but offered no indication of how those Americans should stand. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-Mass.) just walked really fast.
Perhaps that’s because there was nothing much new to offer. Grayson, one of the most outspoken opponents of intervention—he dressed for the occasion in a black tie plastered with multi-colored peace signs and reminded reporters, once more, that he owns the website DontAttackSyria.com—lamented that the presentation he saw on Thursday was almost identical to the one he’d heard earlier in the week. “They are recycling the same old stuff,” he said. “I heard nothing new.”
This morning on the way to school we talked and talked. So far in that car ride no one has changed their minds. My son wants to help people and I couldn’t be prouder. I want to help people to, but I just feel there must be a better way, a way our government, past and present, never seem to be willing to do.
This article appears in Sep 5-11, 2013.
Spot on, my contention since the beginning is to follow the money. The defense contractors are worried about where they will make their money once we are out of Afghanistan–no war, no profit.
This has nothing to do with caring about people, since we seem to randomly pick and choose who to support and who not to support when human rights violations are an issue.
We have no friends among the leaders of either faction in Syria.
We should be dropping medical supplies and gas masks, not cruise missles at $1.4 million bucks each.
Today, we stand at the precipice of our principles. Can we rise to face today’s challenges without forgetting about tomorrow’s price? Or will we resort to making the same mistakes which we so often have made as a people in the past?
The situation in Syria has now reached a critical mass. Estimates are that over 100,000 Syrians have been killed in a bloody civil war, nearly half of them innocent civilians. It is not the deaths of these innocent men, women and children which have led us to the edge of war. No, we as a nation are considering the use of extreme measures, a military attack, not because of 50,000 dead civilians, but because of the illegal use of chemical weapons, because of a principle. We must be prudent in our reaction, we must consider the consequences.
President Obama has called for a direct attack and was joined by Secretary of State John Kerry in imploring the congress, the nation and the world towards military action. Kerry stated unequivocally; “Some site the risk of doing things. But we need to ask, “What is the risk of doing nothing?””
Today, we the American people implore you, our elected officials, to look beyond this missile mandate. We implore you to recognize that as the most resourceful nation in the world, as the world’s economic leader, the world’s most powerful military and as a nation as diverse as the world is large, we are not limited to military action alone. Any suggestion that our only option is a direct attack is in itself a direct attack on the ingenuity and intelligence of every single American citizen.
Our great military is capable of much more than just war:
In 1942, the USAAF performed a mission unlike any other in American history before it; an airlift of supplies to our allies engaged in defending themselves from an enemy invasion. This resupply airlift had to be coordinated to fly over the Himalaya Mountain range, without radar, without weather reports and without knowledge of the terrain. Over the course of the next three and half years our military delivered 650,000 tons of supplies, helping to repel an invasion.
In 1948, President Truman was compelled to act in the face of a blockade which threatened the citizens of Berlin with starvation and isolation. He sought to avoid war and against many of his adviser’s wishes he approved the airlift of supplies to West Berlin. This action carried out by U.S. General Lucius Clay was entirely non-violent in nature and upheld the principles which we hold so dear. Over the course of the following year more than two million tons of supplies were delivered to the people of West Berlin, thus ending the blockade.
Our history is rich and our military fully capable. We implore you to look at the feasibility and amazing opportunity to engage in a modern airlift. A massive airlift operation of medical supplies and gas masks can begin immediately, unilaterally and at the Presidents behest, without any approval from congress. While we discuss and debate the costs and benefits of direct warfare, while we consolidate our support from our international allies for a direct attack, we can be acting now, in a way which can reaffirm our solidarity with the Syrian civilian, which will send a loud and clear message around the world that we do stand by our principles.
A single Tomahawk Missile is estimated to cost 1.4 million dollars; a gas mask at whole sale cost is estimated to cost $14. For the price of one cruise missile we can purchase 100,000 gas masks.
There is no coming back; there is no retreat from the implications of a missile attack. As long as there are other viable options on the table we must consider them.
Today we invoke the heroic actions of “the greatest generation”, today we hold our military in the highest regard. We know what they are capable of; let’s give them an opportunity to engage in a peaceful supply effort that will help the Syrian civilians in their darkest hour. Today I implore you to consider this message and join us in our call:
Masks before Missiles!
Please feel free to share this with your social network; publish it; send it to your elected representative; and so on.
WMD’s are the Law of the Land in Syria, who never signed the international treaty. Using “Morality” as the reason to go to war does not square well with the body count of 3x as high in America where abortion is our “law of the land.” Thankfully no world policemen are off our shores preparing for Regime Change on the high horse of morality. Only 1.5% of Assads’s opponents were killed in this fashion, and the 98.5 killed by the bomb blasts, stabbings, shootings, and fire are not so important. Assad is the Patron Saint of Mercy compatrd to what the North Korean Regime has done to more than a million of its people, and reports of widespread cannibslism in North Korea are not exaggerated as money sent by US Taxpayers was diverted to build ICBM’s and nuclear bombs. Where is Obama on this? In fact, there are no good people in Syria and it is truly in our National Security to let both sides continue to do our bombing gor us. At this point, I want to help the people of Ametica. Real help, not Obamacare help.
^ I apologize for my typos. On an Android I’m typing in the blind. The WMD to Abortion stats based on 1440 Syrians in one day, 4430 Americans every day. Senators keep talking about the need to “Send a message” to Iran. The messages Obama should be sending to Iran are two thermonuclear bombs over the entrances to Iran’s nuclear bombmaking plants. I for one know Obama is too chicken to do what rrally needs to be done and Syria is just a terrible distraction. Within a few years Jerusalem will go up in a mushroom cloud instead. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Maybe you’re one of these Israel H8ers but after Jerisalem, we’re next. The “Mutually Assured Destruction” Doctrine work against an Iran led by fruitcake Ayatollshs who view this as the invocation of the 12th Imam and the beginning of Allah’s will by Muslim domination over Earth – in thermonuclear waste or not.
StartFromScratch and Fred Collins both have the right idea – airlift medical supplies and gas masks to the Syrian people. Missiles are NOT the solution! They are fuel for the fire! As much as I’d like to see that bastard Hassan out
of power, or even dead, without the support of the rest of the civilized world, including Russia and China, going in unilaterally is definitely NOT the answer. While the circumstances in Syria are much different than they were in Iraq or Afghanistan, the result of any military “solution” will be nearly the same.
“^ I apologize for my typos. On an Android I’m typing in the blind.”
Me thinks the Android is not necessarily the problem.