The Progressive Divide on Syria
Last night at the PDD meeting in New Castle, there was a lively discussion about a proposed resolution opposing the military authorization before Congress. The resolution is below:
[DRAFT] RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE SYRIAN AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE
The Progressive Democrats for Delaware (‘PDD’) hereby calls on Senator Thomas Carper, Senator Christopher Coons and Congressman John Carney to vote against the Syrian Authorization to use Military Force. While the PDD commends President Obama for seeking congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria, Congress should and must vote against the authorization. To be sure, the PDD condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the apparent usage of chemical weapons by the Assad government in Syria. However, America must disabuse itself of the notion that it is the world’s policeman. There are simply too many unintended and catastrophic consequences that can result from any potential military intervention by the United States in the Syrian Civil War. No matter how good or justified our intentions may be, and no matter how limited and narrowly tailored our intervention is supposed to be, we believe that any military action by the United States will further destabilize the entire region, and damage the national security of the United States and our allies in the region, namely Turkey and Israel. The Obama Administration has no answer to what happens after we attack Syria. Too many times in the past, members of Congress have rushed America into war without carefully weighing all the options and all the possible consequences.
Instead of military action, the United States and the world should continue with humanitarian efforts for Syrian refugees inside and outside of Syria and diplomatic efforts to reach an immediate cease fire in the Civil War. Further, to address the apparent use of chemical weapons by the Assad government, war crimes charges should be brought against Bashar al-Assad and other responsible individuals in the Syrian military and government. If our President and our Congress want to send a message that the usage of chemical weapons crosses a “red line” and is intolerable, then make Assad join the ranks of the Nazis at Nuremburg and Slobodan Milošević.
We encourage all like-minded Delawareans to contact Senators Coons and Carper and Congressman Carney to encourage them to vote against the authorization.
The vote at the meeting was nearly evenly split, with one more vote approving the resolution than not. The vote continues today online at the PDD Facebook page and through email (pddemail@gmail.com).
This progressive divide should not have been surprising but it was. For it was already playing out in the editorial pages of the News Journal. Here is Bob Stachnik, an early supporter (back from the Howard Dean days) of progressives in Delaware:
Although I was opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I support President Obama’s proposed limited use of force in Syria. There is little similarity between the two actions.
Five years prior to the start of the Iraq War, and long before any talk of Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Richard Armitage and Elliot Abrams publicly called for removal of Saddam Hussein from power. These future senior members of the Bush policy team came to power determined in advance to go to war. For them, the only thing needed was an excuse.
Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency, by contrast, was founded on his opposition to ill-considered military action and, in the case of Syria, he has been anything but interventionist. Far from spoiling for a fight, Obama has been extremely reluctant to engage. British Prime Minister Cameron’s government estimates the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against civilians 14 times prior to the newest, most horrific, incident. Only now, in the face of a particularly terrible 15th occurrence, has President Obama chosen to act.
The Assad regime was warned, not just by the U.S. but by the international community, not to use poison gas against its citizens. It has cynically and deliberately chosen to do so anyway.
This is not a happy situation, but the cruise missile option minimizes the prospects for future U.S. involvement and the possibility of civilian casualties, while at the same time punishing a dictator whose cruelty has precipitated a war that’s already cost the lives of 100,000 Syrians.
Robert Stachnik, Newark
And then here is Joanne Cabry from the Progressive Democrats of Sussex County:
My initial reaction when I forced myself to look at the pictures from Damascus of babies wrapped in shrouds, was to do whatever it took to get rid of the Assad regime. But this is revenge – not a reason to go to war. And air strikes are an act of war. I can think of no moral, legal or strategic reason to bomb Syria.
Secretary of State John Kerry said, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” He did not use “law” because Syria never signed the chemical weapon prohibition treaty. Even if they had, use of force is permitted when authorized by the United Nation’s Security Council. Syria has not attacked the U.S. There is no U.N. Security Council authorization for a strike.
The use of chemical weapons is horrific, but 100,000 people have already died by other means. Children have watched fathers tortured and mothers and sisters raped before being killed. They are among 1 million refugees with unbearable memories. Why are the deaths by chemical weapons treated differently?
Bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons would be untenable, since many would release poison gases into densely populated neighborhoods. Syria can deliver chemical weapons by planes, missiles or mortars.
The Pentagon estimates there are more than 800 rebel groups currently active in Syria, some affiliated with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Are we going to support these groups and give them weapons?
We need to speak out for humanitarian and diplomatic action. Tell the president and Congress that limiting “collateral civilian damage” by using cruise missiles still means more children wrapped in shrouds. It will not bring peace to Syria.Joanne Cabry
Both eloquent, but Joanne Cabry makes a stronger case. Bob’s argument hangs on having some faith in the US government to be a good actor, which I don’t.
Bob’s argument also depends on having faith in the notion that we can “(minimize) civilian casualties, while at the same time punishing a dictator”
I don’ have any faith that we can do that.
Assad already is in a fight for his life. What makes anyone think that our idea of “punishment” would make his situation any worse than it already is? If poison gas will keep him alive, he’ll use it again no matter what we decide to bomb.
It is basic progressive Democrat dogma, in my experience (don’t confuse progressive with liberal), the former having as root doctrine economic justice as our priority and the latter social justice as their top priority. Progressive doctrine discourages international interventionism as a typical offshoot of imperialism and world economic domination. Liberal dogma more typically associates with corporatism and advancement of the U.S.’s domination of commerce, including international commerce. Thus a Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich being early pillars of the progressive movement within the Democratic Party and their opposition to the Iraq war, compared to traditional liberals such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry supporting that war. Progressive doctrine does not require pacifism, but welcomes them into the fold; rather it considers war as a last resort and its use only to defend American’s from foreign physical attack; it is dubious of “protecting American interests abroad”, which usually means defending corporate ventures abroad.
By classical and historic definition, progressive doctrine involves reform of status quo institutions and political behavior, with priority for economic issues. This includes budgetary reforms involving the military industrial complex and reduction of military spending and reforms of our foreign policy to de-emphasize economic domination and use of military power to that end.
Appointing ourselves as the world cop, because of both our military and economic domination, is compatible with the concept of “punishing Syria”.
There are dozens of examples of egregious acts of genocide around the globe we have not seen fit to punish. Why has the President chosen Syria?
He spelled it out clearly; to “keep the oil flowing” to us and our allies in the region. His words, not mine. This is the economic issue at stake. This was much more rational, frankly than his rationale for killing. The President is willing to put us at risk for massive retaliation for our acts of killing for “humanitarian” purposes. This contradiction is precisely the kind of reform progressives are about. I welcome liberals to our common cause as Democrats and share your passion for social justice. But don’t call yourselves progressive. You are neither reforming nor advocating for economic justice.
Thus, it would appear Robert has abandoned his progressive roots.
Again, it is the old argument reprocessed (all the way back to WWI). The two sides are, “We Can’t Go To War Over This” and “We Can’t Let This Go Unpunished”
What is almost totally missing from the argument (I’ve only seen two made) is why we can’t punish someone in ways that don’t involve going to war? Why is going to war our ONLY option?
Stan makes a great point. We should be clear that when we act as the world’s police force, we are not acting on behalf of, and for the benefit of the citizens of the world. We are acting to protect the profits of multinational corporations.
How was the Treasuryer’s speech?
I’ve been waiting for that thread too.
Being the most vocal advocate for “measured” support of President Obama and not supporting the Resolution, I feel I should explain my position. IN THIS situation alone, I believe it’s appropriate to, “cut the head from the snake”.
In this situation, I believe that there is substantial, if not irrefutable proof that Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens and countrymen, despite his country signing the Geneva Convention to NEVER use those weapons! He KILLED his own civilian citizens, including children! In judging that decision, by any religion that I know of, it is reprehensible and Assad should be immediately and permanently removed.
I DO NOT support boots on the ground. I DO NOT support dozens, if not hundreds, of air sorties. I support a surgical strike to remove Assad from the equation ONLY. We did it with any number of Bin Laden’s leadership corps, we can do it with Assad. I also believe that if he is specifically taken out of the Syrian civil war, the rest of his regime will be compelled to attempt to negotiate some sort of settlement.
I realize this position is somewhat simplistic, but I believe what Assad did is completely immoral and any Country that has the capability to make sure he doesn’t do it again, and then choices not to, has left my sense of morality and joined Assad.
Bill, there has been NO proof that the chemical weapons were used by Assad. NONE, ZERO. But you’re ready to jump on the war bandwagon. You support sending bombs into Syria and killing and maiming more children?? What kind of warped thinking is that — and just to punish Assad? I’m sorry, friend, but you’ve drunk the Government’s Kool-Aid and you actually believe them. I found out the hard way – never believe their reasons for getting us into war. NEVER.
How “surgical” we can be is wildly overstated. If you look at Libya (which is regarded as an example of this kind of intervention) our bombing was indiscriminate, killing scores of civilians. So how many civilians (including children!) should we kill to attempt to stop Assad from killing civilians?
Also, viewing Libya as an example again, we have no idea what will happen after even the most surgical of operations.
June, I’m sorry, but don’t be Putin here. Do not defend Assad. Do not dispute that he used chemical weapons. I am convinced he did, and there is actual evidence that he did. But I still don’t want us to strike.
Stick to opposing American military action. That is the point.
The way I see it liberals want social justice and economic justice. I’m not sure you can separate them completely. Progressives want the same thing. The difference is that liberals will take any step in the right direction while those who call themselves progressive would rather have all or nothing. They seem happy to complain.
Remember 2000 when the Greens said there was no difference between Bush and Gore?
It’s a terrible situation that will not be solved by firing a few dozen Tomahawks into buildings where we think stuff is… The entire thing is ridiculous. It’s capricious anyway. How are chemical weapons worse than political executions and gulags in North Korea. Mass rapes and executions in Africa.
Reality check… it’s a civil fucking war. Factions are shooting and killing people every day. Buildings are bombed. Cities under siege with volleys of artillery shells. Firefights in the streets.
Let stipulate that there’s a major problem. I still for the life of me don’t understand what success looks like. Let say we do tomahawks from warships, drones and a handful of airstrikes over say 3 days. Did we succeed? When the Civil War continues in earnest then what?
The best part is that we aren’t going “to war.” That’s seems like a funny statement. I said it last week and I’ll say it again… for those who have been in a fist fight, did you give like 10% effort to prove a point? The whole idea is fucking stupid… but we have to sit here and play politics and pretend like there are two sides.
You know what… what do I care! Let ‘er rip. And in a month let me know what we achieved.
June, no, I am not ready to “jump on the war bandwagon”. No, I do not support “bombs”, I support one bomb.
Also, I work in the chemical industry doing analytical research utilizing state-of-the-art analytical equipment. It is easily conceivable that they have collected air samples over the area to confirm the world’s suspicions, yet they have no reason to disclose that to Assad and everyone else.
Jason, if that’s true about Libya, we should learn from our mistakes and make sure they don’t happen again. Nonetheless, watching the progress in technology, I’m sure our capabilities have improved significantly in 3 or 4 years.
Good news… right now the Huffington Post Vote Tracker has the vote count at 212 no/lean no votes in the House, while only 43 yes/lean yes.
That is 5 votes shy of the 217 need to block the resolution (there is one vacant seat).
For those opposed to military action, what do you think we should do, if anything?
@AQC- I think the US should support the International Criminal Court bringing charges against Assad. The US simply doesn’t have the resources, nor the moral superiority necessary to play unilateral world police.
We still do not have definitive proof that the chemical attack was either done by Assad’s regime nor that it was military grade material, Sarin or otherwise. There are many unconfirmed reports that a lower grade material was used through mishandling by rebel forces. That being said, another action that we can take, in addition to pushing hard with allies for a cease fire and resolution talks to reshape Syria’s governance, is to demand, again with regional allies, that Assad turn over his chemical arsenal to a third party custodian, under UN or Arab League supervision.
We spend more than the next 37 countries (combined!) on defense. Investing some of that money in an international effort to give the Hague some muscle would be well spent.