- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Obama and the GOP quislings who now make a career of collaborating with his destruction of America’s Constitution of liberty are determined to wage aggressive war against the current government of Syria. They claim that President Assad of Syria has used chemical weapons against some Syrians. They then claim that we are therefore authorized to make aggressive war against other Syrians. The first claim remains factually unproven. Some reports cite contrary evidence suggesting the rebels opposed to Assad were responsible for the deadly attack. The second claim is subject to strong moral objections, given the equally abhorrent character of both sides in the Syrian civil war.
The anti-Assad rebels include, and may be dominated by, elements of al-Qaida, the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. This belies the notion that the anti-Assad forces eschew the use of chemical weapons. So do reports indicating that they possess and have used such weapons already. If such reports are accurate, one likely result of U.S. involvement will be to put Americans squarely in the crosshairs of any putatively “retaliatory” strikes by the rebel forces.
It makes no sense to pretend that we are fulfilling some moral obligation to deter chemical weapons attacks when a) the action (air strikes) proposed is unlikely effectively to inhibit their future use; and b) it may lead to a much wider conflict, endangering a much larger population of innocent noncombatants. Moreover, the supposedly moral motivation of the proposed U.S. intervention is itself highly suspect when a) we have been providing lethal weapons to Syrian forces guilty of heinous atrocities, including the slaughter of Christians on religious grounds; and b) the more plausible and compelling motivation may be the Obama faction’s need to shield Obama from the crippling embarrassment of his ill-advised imposition of a parlous, debatable threshold for aggressive action.
Obama and his GOP quislings also propose to act without regard to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution or the international procedures established after World War II to discourage and constrain states tempted to repeat Hitler’s pattern of excuse for aggression. He would cite a government’s abuse of its citizens (who happened to be ethnic Germans) as an excuse for aggressive acts of annexation and conquest.
In the post WWII era, American presidents saw fit to show respect for the good intentions that informed the post-war international arrangements, even when, like Ronald Reagan, they refused to accept the notion that the United States had surrendered, in any respect, its sovereign right to defend itself and its citizens. They took pains to make use of the U.N. Security Council forum to present to the world facts and reasoning that justified U.S. military action. They did not do so because there is any international authority with the lawful competence or capacity to prevent or punish our self-defense. They did so because our example re-enforced, with good reason, the authority of the natural law that requires all people to show “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”
Why have Obama and his GOP quislings refused to follow this good example? Could it be because their proposed intervention has nothing to do with America’s right to defend itself? Indeed, far from being attacked by President Assad, we have been providing lethal support to the very forces that horrifically attacked us; and that continue “in the known disposition” to do so again and again, thereby remaining “in that condition which is called war. …”
So we now are supposed to war with the current Syrian government over its use of chemical weapons in order to aid al-Qaida connected forces that are also willing to use chemical weapons – even though they happen still to be in a state of war against us (however many times Obama and his quislings deceitfully protest that the terrorists’ war has ended). It’s easy to understand why the Obama/GOP quisling faction have no wish to go before the world to defend the good sense of this proposal. It obviously makes no sense.
Rather than making themselves look like dupes by accepting this nonsense, thinking people in Congress should represent the good conscience and common sense of their constituents. They should also reflect on the hidden agenda this parlous and patently irrational proposal for aggressive war may represent. As I and some others pointed out when Obama unilaterally embarked on a similar escapade in Libya, the framers of the U.S. Constitution “recognized and granted the Executive’s essential prerogative to respond as necessary to attacks against the United States. But in leaving it to Congress to declare war, they withheld from the Executive branch the authority unilaterally to initiate hostilities in the absence of any attack.”
Even before that I pointed out the deadly implications of “then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s assertion that ‘all of America ends up at war when a president decides to send troops into combat.'”
“The formal declaration of war is more than a legalistic artifact of international law and practice. Among other things, it signifies that the people recognize and accept the conditional impairment of liberties war necessarily entails. It also assures that the consent of the people will be sought when government plans the sustained exercise of one of its gravest and potentially most destructive powers. It is therefore a barrier against the arbitrary and incessant institution of perpetual war that is one of the standard means of imposing tyranny.”
On many fronts, the Obama/GOP quisling faction has launched a general offensive against the constitution and self-government of the American people. Any precedent that confirms the false notion that the president of the United States has unchecked unilateral power to keep the nation perpetually involved in military conflict must be regarded as part of that offensive. The two Johns (Boehner and McCain) may be willing to flush away the congressional prerogative that empowers the American people to thwart this tool of designing despotism. But any GOP representative or U.S. senator who want to escape complicity in their betrayal of America’s liberty would be well-advised to vote against Obama’s dangerous Syrian folly. Instead, they should think through the additional evidence it offers that the Obama faction, and all those in government collaborating with their ant-constitutional schemes on any front, must be removed from office before it is too late.
How many reasons are there to impeach Barack Obama? Read the definitive accounting, meticulously documented and footnoted by best-selling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda Elliott: “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama from Office”