This is a perfect opportunity to voice dissent, to representatives and senators. The population can turn the upcoming vote on Capitol Hill into a national referendum.
Where Congress stands on Syria:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/where-lawmakers-stand-on-syria
Finding your representative:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find
September 9, 2013
Dear Mr. Foster,
My name is Gregory Harms and I write about politics and history, mostly US foreign policy and the Middle East. Naturally, the subject of Syria has my attention. And as a member of your district, I thought I would share with you my concerns.
I called your office last week, inquiring as to where you stand on the White House's plans to commence airstrikes on Syria in response to the Bashar al-Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons. The person who answered the phone said no one in the office knew.
Yesterday morning, I discovered with disappointment on the Washington Post's website that you are located in the "for military action" column. (Likewise for our two senators.)
In the event the Post's information is accurate, it is my hope that you will reconsider your position and vote against the administration's initiative. The White House has made it clear that this will be an exhibition of hard power and little else. A US-led attack will be motivated by concern for President Obama's "credibility," not for national security or the Syrian people
Secretary of State John Kerry himself concedes that the solution to Syria's civil war will have to be political, that there is no military solution. On this, he and I are in agreement. The situation in Syria has become a nightmare because the international community has let it degenerate to that point. Honest, rigorous diplomacy - which the administration has not pursued - can yield results.
On the contrary, an attack on Syria - no matter how "limited" - is a bad idea, morally, legally, and practically:
1. Because the action will be punitive, the people most likely to be punished will be civilians.
2. There is no UN Security Council resolution in place, making any military action illegal under international law. (Even if there was a resolution, missile strikes would still be the wrong course of action.) Furthermore, any invocation of "responsibility to protect" (R2P) in this context is wide of the mark; R2P is a UN concept falling within the Security Council's purview "should peaceful means be inadequate."
3. As Gen. Martin Dempsey (JCS) and others have pointed out, once operations have commenced, there is no telling what will happen as a result - further destabilization, terrorist reprisal, etc. As your years of study and research in physics taught you, unanticipated results should be anticipated.
Mr. Foster, you have an opportunity to influence your colleagues and help move things in a more rational, lawful, diplomatic, and humane direction. Please don't throw away this valuable moment.
If you would like to discuss these matters, either on the phone or in person, I would be glad to talk with you.
Best regards,
Gregory
