Letter to Congress Member Judy Chu on Syria

Dear Congressmember Chu:

I am a long term resident of Pasadena and your constituent.  President Obama will be seeking authorization for a military response to the chemical weapon attack in Syria.  I am writing to express my view on this subject as your constituent.

Syria is embroiled in a civil war, with the Assad regime and allies Hezbollah and Iran pitted against rebel groups.  On August 21, 2013, the Government is alleged to have used chemical weapons, which resulted in the death of 1429 civilians, 429 of whom are children.  President Obama initially vowed retaliation for this outrage, but has now decided to seek authorization from Congress for military action.

I don't this country can or should use the military to punish another government, as President Obama initially suggested.  Punishment is tricky enough to get right with an individual.  It requires a trial to prove up a violation of law and then a judge to fashion an proportionate sentence.  I don't see how there can be a parallel in foreign relations.  We cannot try and convict the Assad regime and there is no way to ensure the punishment will be visited on the guilty parties and not bystanders.

There are some politicians who are against US involvement unless our national interest are at stake.  I think this standard is wrong.  It is both too narrow and too broad. I don't think all wars in the perceived national interest are justified.  The Mexican American war and various military actions against Native Americans in the 19th Century were in a sense in the national interest because they increased the geographical size of the US  or wealth of the US, but I don't think that makes the wars right.  The standard is also too narrow in the sense that what is the US national interest cannot be the sole determining factor for involvement with and in the affairs of foreign countries. Interests of people outside the US are important and should also be considered.  The "national interest" standard is wrong because it is just too selfish. 

I would instead agree that self-defense is way to justify to foreign involvement.  Is the US threatened by the chemical attack in Syria?  I don't think so.  There is no direct threat on Americans or American interests related to this chemical attack.  There are some who would say US credibility and prestige are at stake, and if the US does not respond than its position in the world will be diminished and its voice ignored.  I don't buy this.  It is the excuse used to continue or initiate bad wars historically, such as Vietnam. 

Then there is the humanitarian justification.  Wrongs anywhere in the world are the business of the United States.  I agree that the US should concern itself with the welfare of others.  People have the same value and dignity regardless of nationality.  However, dropping more bombs on Syria will not right the wrong, or make anyone safer.  Soldiers will die, but more children will die too.  It will just heap atrocity upon atrocity and injustice upon injustice and it will reinforce the perception in this part of the world that the US hates Muslims.

Syria has a population just north of 20 million.  Instead of contributing to the misery of the people in this country and possibly the creation of another failed state, perhaps the US can help those still in harm's way.   Why cannot the US simply provide shelter to some portion of the non-combatants in this country who can make it out safely, and encourage other nations to do the same?  Would Assad allies Russia and China oppose resolutions in the UN that all member countries pledge to take in refugees, or even to provide safe passage out of Syria?  The US will do this and take other similar measures if it truly wishes to help the people in this country and live up to its highest ideals.