OBAMA'S PLAN FOR WAR WITH SYRIA

LET'S NOT REPEAT 2003

SEND IN THE UN INSPECTORS TO REVIEW KERRY'S CLAIMS

(Draft)

It is not honest to suggest that America can start a war with Syria and guarantee the American people and the world that this will not involve a major commitment of U.S. troops. Thus, we need to know the facts before war not afterwards.

As noted below there are huge credibility problems with Kerry's claims. These need to be reviewed by UN inspectors.

So what are the facts?

There is serious evidence that both sides may have used chemical weapons. Kerry's accusations against Assad and Russian and other accusations against the rebels need to be reviewed by an impartial source, the UN inspectors. They should be given time to go back to Syria and do their job.

Russian findings on rebel use of chemical weapons (RT, 9-5-13)

Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence? (CBSNews, 8-29-13)

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas (Reuters, 5-5-13)

Inconsistent Statements from Kerry and Obama Team: The Obama Administration's case for attacking Syria is riddled with inconsistencies. The case Secretary of State John Kerry laid out on August 30th contained statements that were disputed by the United Nations, conflicted with details of British and French intelligence and lacked transparency. The Obama team dismissed the value of a U.N. inspection team's work by saying that the inspectors arrived too late for the findings to be credible. Yet U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq countered this statement by saying that such chemicals can be detected months after use. There are also drastically different numbers on the death toll being thrown around. The United States has claimed over a thousand deaths while France has stated that there were only 281 fatalities.

To Some, U.S. Case for Syrian Gas Attack, Strike has too Many Holes (McClatchy, 9-2-13)

Potential for extended military action (Reuters, 5-3-13)

Kerry unable to conclusively rule out 'Boots on the Ground' (Huffington Post, 9-3-13)

Obama's Proposed Syria Strikes are Largely Divorced From Interests of the Syrian People (Washington Post, 9-2-13)

In Trying to help Syria, an Intervention Would Destroy It (Washington Post, 8-30-13)

WHO ARE THE REBELS OBAMA IS BACKING?

A CHAOTIC MESS WITH CLOSE LINKS TO TERRORISTS

The Rebels backed by the United States are associated with terrorist activity: There is a growing body of evidence that the opposition groups are a criminal environment populated by gangs, kidnappers and killers. Other elements of the opposition are even openly allied with Al Qaeda according to the New York Times. This has raised the prospect that a U.S. intervention in Syria could inadvertently strengthen Islamic extremists and criminal activity. Read more about it in the article below:

Free Syrian Army breaking apart (Foreign Policy, 9-3-13)

Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West (New York Times, 9-5-13)

Terrorist-linked Rebels attack civilian populations (CBC, 9-5-13)

Administration assertions regarding Rebels at odds with intelligence reports (Reuters, 9-5-13)

History of America's Role in Syrian Violence: Even though we have not gotten directly involved with military action yet, there is plenty of evidence that our decision to support the rebels by supplying fighters and weapons has contributed to massive violence and prolonged bloodshed in the Syrian civil war. Before the U.S. got involved, this was a war with casualties in the 1,000's. Yet now more than 100,000 people have died and much of the world's cultural and archaeological treasures have been destroyed. The U.S. has inflamed a conflict that may have been ended quickly by the Syrian government, had we not chosen to get involved. The other fact is that a majority of Syrians (55%) support Assad. Is it right for the U.S. to oppose the will of the Syrian people? Jeffrey Sachs discusses this more in an article below:

Calling off America's Bombs (Common Dreams: Jeffrey Sachs, 9-5-13)

Saudi Arabia's Role in Syrian Violence: Saudi Arabia has had a role in sending weapons to the rebel forces. The Saudi king Abdullah was the first Arab leader to condemn the Assad regime in 2011. While both countries share an Arab Nationalist and Islamic identity, the Syrian government of Assad supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In this fight, America is supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state.

A Veteran Saudi Power Player Works to Build Support to Topple Assad (The Wall Street Journal, 8-25-13)

Saudi Arabia Offers Russia Deal For Backing Off Assad Support (Huffington Post, 8-7-13)

Destroy All Churches in the Arabian Peninsula - Saudi Grand Mufti (RT, 3-16-12)

Violence throughout the Middle East: It is likely that the results of this war will spill out into other Middle Eastern countries in the region. We're talking about violence in Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. The article below gives further details for how this violence could spread.

Syria Warns U.S. Not to Intervene Militarily (ABC News, 8-24-13)

Damage to the U.S. budget crisis: There will be immense pressure against cutting defense spending in a sane manner. America is already spending more than it did during the Cold War.

Damage to America's credibility around the world: There is almost zero international support for U.S. intervention in Syria. Our allies in the U.K. are not getting involved. Canada, Australia, Germany and Italy have all also stated that they will not join the war effort. Even the Arab league, who supported the 2011 bombing in Libya, has refused to support military action without U.N. Security Council approval. France is our only ally as of now willing to get involved. Let's compare this to the war in Iraq in 2003 where we managed to get 40 other nations to go to war. Going to war in Syria with (at most) one other international partner would be foolish.

Military Action in Syria Has Very Low Approval Ratings: As well as lacking interest in the international community, there is very little support for this war at home here in America - apparently only 9% of Americans approve of striking Syria (according to a Reuters/Ipsos Poll)! America is tired of war. Obama was elected as the president that would get America out of Iraq - not into another "Iraq" with a bloodier cost.

Only 9% of Americans Approve of Military Intervention in Syria: According to Reuters/Ipsos Poll (Washington Post, 8-26-13)

Obama Approval Rating Plummets To Its Lowest Point Ever, Syria is to Blame (Business Insider, 8-30-13)

GOP Congressman: Military Members Keep Telling Me to Vote No on Syria (Business Insider, 8-31-13)

We cannot ignore Russia: Russia is a key player in this situation. They are the main ally to the Syrian government. Yet the Obama administration has continued to ignore Russia's voice. A U.S. military intervention in Syria has the possibility of provoking military action from Russia, a heavily armed nuclear super power. Such an action opens the door to kick starting a larger war with global players bigger than just Syria alone. We're not saying it's a guarantee, but it is a scary possibility that should be avoided.

A violation of international law: The United Nations charter mandates that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) self-defense, and (2) force authorized by the UN Security Council. Neither of these exceptions apply to the United States' intentions in Syria. Any proposed bombing would lack legal justification.

Read the UN Charter Here.

The U.N. Security Council Needs to have the Final Say: The United States should not and cannot afford to rush into action here without approval from the United Nations. Such an action would be a direct violation of International Law. Not only that, but it would damage our credibility and relationships with other countries around the world, as well as enraging Russia. If the United States wants to take action in this matter, it is crucial for us to sit down at the table with Russia and come to an agreement on a solution that the international community could support before moving forward. Russia has supported the idea of letting the U.N. Security Council mediate on this matter. Such a move is critical in considering what is best for Syria, the United States, Russia and the international community at large.

U.S. Russia Stalemate: Steinmeier Demands That Merkel Must Take Initiative on Syria (Spiegel Online, 9-5-13)

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon Warns U.S. Strike in Syria Could Unleash More Turmoil (Huffington Post, 9-3-13)