Category: News

We write to you today as two young Americans who believe that striking Syria will lead to a never-ending war that will wipe out our generation’s future. But we write to you filled with hope. For years We, The People of the United States of America have been divided by bitter partisanship but today we stand united in transpartisanopposition to striking Syria. Even radical neoconservatives like John Bolton and Glenn Beck agree with Jon Stewart and Pope Francis that America must not strike Syria.

According to the most recent polls, We, The People are screaming at the top of our lungs: Keep our Bombs Off Syria! If the US government decides to strike Syria in spite of the wishes of over 200 million Americans, Barack Obama and every single member of Congress who votes ‘yes’ will be sending Tomahawk missiles into the hearts of the vast majority of Americans who oppose the strike. We demand that our government respects our wishes over the desires of lobbyists for Israel and the military-industrial complex.If you oppose strikes on Syria, you must act now! Before you read the rest of this article, scroll to the bottom for telephone numbers of the congresspeople you must contact immediately.

The "Humanitarian Intervention" Myth

It is despicable to call this a "humanitarian" mission. Initiating another American conflict in the Middle East is sadomasochistic at best. If the US government truly cared about the people of Syria, would they have stood by while 100,000 people died during the first 2 years of the civil war? Why are "chemical weapons" killing 1400 people so different from guns and bombs killing nearly 10 times that many people during the first stretch of the war?

Continue reading “This Is How the American Youth Will Stop the Syrian War!”

Amman, Jordan – Turning on the television in Amman one will discover news coverage of the Syrian Civil War that is eerily similar to that in the United States albeit it is more in-depth. Whether it be the BBC, Al-Jazeera, or of course CNN all are unanimous in their incessant condemnation of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and consistent deriding of the US Congress for their "delay."

However there exists one primary difference. The attitudes. The Jordanian public is not persuaded by the media coverage, as has happened so much to the American public in the past, regardless of how one sided it may be. Nearly every location I go, markets, cafes, and restaurants the consensus is overriding. There is no desire for a US strike on Syria. No desire for a knight in shining armor. The same consensus too, transcends religious and ethnic lines. The Sunni Muslim community is afraid their situation will become yet another Iraq, with a spillover effect resulting in a tumultuous Jordan. While the Christian community is petrified at the thought of losing a tacit homeland, a homeland they felt they never belonged to in the first place.

One Palestinian Christian woman speaking candidly told me "we can go nowhere if Jordan is lost, we have hardly a home here, if it goes we will never have nowhere to go."

That is the fear. A United States attack will not assist the situation; rather it will prolong it and finally in the words of Assad "engulf the whole region in flames."

So while the chemical weapons attack on the part of the Assad regime is heinous and disgusting act, a US response will neither fix the situation nor dissuade Assad, especially if he gets desperate. Nor would an attack win the US any more support from general Middle Eastern populace; a goal of the US since the implementation of the Carter Doctrine in 1980. Perhaps for one of the first times though, the American and Middle Eastern public is on the same side of an issue. Ideally the US public, like their Jordanian counterparts, will not be dissuaded, and hopefully this time too democracy will prevail.

Tyler Abboud is a junior at the University of Colorado at Boulder studying International Affairs. His study focus is on the Middle East policies and WMD proliferation. His is currently in Amman, Jordan trying to gather opinion on the issue of the Syrian Civil War and the overriding consensus is that of a negative towards the idea of a US attack.

The good news? President Obama’s surprise decision to consult Congress about launching a U.S. strike on Syria has returned crucial powers to the people’s representatives, allowing a much-needed public discussion about the U.S. stake – or lack thereof – in Syria’s civil war.

The bad news? Obama has claimed the authority to attack Syria no matter what Congress decides. This arrogance, which mirrors America’s own hubris on the world stage, will no doubt escalate the threat of terrorism against the United States and could embroil the country in a broader Middle Eastern war.

The White House has justified its proposed attack by asserting that Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons violated international “standards” and “norms.” However, if the Obama administration does go ahead with its proposed strikes, the United States itself will be acting in violation of international law. According to the U.N. Charter, the United Nations “prohibits any and all use of force against other states, except for the purpose of individual or collective self-defense, or as authorized by the U.N. Security Council for the purposes of restoring or maintaining collective security.” None of these conditions currently apply.

The president and his national security team have apparently already concluded that intervention in Syria serves America’s interests, and appear determined to act accordingly. Chemical weapons merely provide a justification to assert those interests, among which are to ensure access to oil and to help allies, especially Israel, in the Middle East. Moreover, the intervention has a global and regional component: the administration is warning the Russian Federation and China that the United States will defend its interests in the Middle East, with military force if necessary. As for Iran, it is a warning that the United States is determined to reduce Iranian influence in the region, sending a signal that Washington has the will and capability to retaliate if Iran decides to develop nuclear weapons.

What are the facts of the case? Obama has concluded “that the Syrian government, in fact, carried out” a chemical attack on civilians, and that we need to send “a pretty strong signal that they better not do it again.” Secretary of State John Kerry claimed that the White House has overwhelming evidence and “high confidence” that the government of Syria used chemical weapons, and released a declassified intelligence dossier to back up these charges. But the United States does not in fact have ironclad proof that Assad used chemical weapons in August. To be sure, the UN envoy has suggested that some chemical substance was used but has not released any definitive findings about the culprit. While it’s likely that Assad is guilty, it is also conceivable that a rogue military unit or a segment of the rebel opposition could be the culprit.

Continue reading “Forget Red Lines: Obama Should Eat His Words on Syria”

Demonstrators opposing a U.S. attack on Syria lined a busy Houston intersection Saturday evening, waving signs, U.S. and Syrian flags, and chanting slogans at the thousands of passing motorists, many of whom honked and waved their approval. The group numbered roughly 70 at their peak during the three-hour rally, with dozens arriving and leaving during the event.

Across the broad boulevard, counter-demonstrators in favor of raining more death from the skies on that country set up their own rally, with their own signs, their own chants, and an electric bullhorn (which requires a permit in Houston). Close to two dozen Houston uniformed policemen (plus an unknown number of plainclothes police, FBI and CIA) were on hand, but the situation remained peaceful however noisy throughout.

The only confrontation occurred when police confiscated a shoe-box full of what one antiwar demonstrator termed "seed bombs," which were packets of seeds intended to be passed around to activists for planting their own urban gardens. The police determined that the packets could be used as projectiles against the counter-demonstrators and took them away, although the activist was not arrested. Otherwise police action was limited to warning shooing demonstrators out of the street, who were attempting to get photos of their comrades.

Last week we wrote about what you could do to stop the war in Syria. This week we can say – many Americans are taking the action needed to stop this war.

If we succeed, and it is still a very big ‘if,’ it will be a historic. We cannot remember when the American people stopped a war after a president said he wanted to bomb a country.

How close are we? The Washington Post is reporting that 180 members of the House of Representatives are leaning toward a ‘no war’ vote. FireDogLake reports 216 are leaning no. To win requires 217 votes. We need to solidify those who are leaning toward voting ‘no to war’ and convince enough undecided votes to vote ‘no.’ Click here for an updated tally.

The media is reporting that Congress is being flooded with phone calls and that at constituent meetings people are telling their representatives to vote ‘no’ on war. Immediately after the President’s call for war, there were protests across the country. Hearings in Congress to authorize war were interrupted by protesters. Congress needs to hear from you. Call 202-224-3121. Take part in a historic moment – stop a war!

Even before the war begins, members of the Armed Services are speaking out against the war. Top military leaders leaked to the media their concerns about the war while intelligence officials also leaked their concerns about the shaky intelligence.

If we are successful in stopping an attack on Syria, it will teach the movement something very important. Movements need to be independent of the two parties to win. As Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained: “I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both – not the servant or master of either.”

The only reason the antiwar effort has a chance is because opposition is coming from across the political spectrum, and both Republicans and Democrats in the House are opposing this war. Even the classified briefings are unconvincing.

Continue reading “People Joining Across Spectrum To Stop War on Syria and It’s Having an Effect”

No matter how many times we’ve seen it before, the frenzy for launching a military attack on another country is – to the extent we’re not numb – profoundly upsetting. Tanked up with talking points in Washington, top officials drive policy while intoxicated with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism," and most media coverage becomes similarly unhinged. That’s where we are now.

But new variables have opened up possibilities for disrupting the repetitive plunge to war. Syria is in the crosshairs of U.S. firepower, but cracks in the political machinery of the warfare state are widening here at home. For advocates of militarism and empire by any other name, the specter of democratic constraint looms as an ominous threat.

Into the Capitol Hill arena, the Obama White House sent Secretary of State John Kerry to speak in a best-and-brightest dialect of neocon tongues. The congressional hierarchies of both parties – Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, Eric Cantor – are on the same page for an attack on Syria. And meanwhile, the U.S. mass media have been cranking up the usual adrenalin-pumped hype for war.

More than 10 years ago, American media outlets were filled with breathless idolatry of the latest U.S. weapons poised to strike Iraq. Now, the big TV networks are at it again – starting to hype the Pentagon’s high-tech arsenal that’s ready to demolish Syrian targets. Of course the people at the other end of the weaponry aren’t in the picture.

The Media Education Foundation has just posted a two-minute montage of coverage from MSNBC, Fox and CNN idolizing the latest Pentagon weaponry for use in the Iraq invasion a decade ago – as well as Walter Cronkite doing the same on CBS during the Vietnam War. As a present-day bookend, a CNN clip from a few days ago provides a glimpse of how little has changed (except for slicker on-screen graphics).

But the usual agenda-building for war may not work this time.

Continue reading “The Repetition Compulsion for War – and How It Might Fail This Time”