Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 11 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 9/11/13

Syria: thank Congress's resistance to war for the chance of a diplomatic deal

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments

This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Source: The Guardian

The military intervention party has powerful advocates, including President Obama, but Congress has heard the American public

(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA
President Barack Obama meets with leading members of Congress at the White House in Washington, DC. Photograph: Dennis Brack/POOL/EPA

President Obama has headed up a lobbying and public relations blitzkrieg for bombing Syria that seems to surpass any legislative effort of his presidency besides healthcare reform. Why?

If Congress refuses to authorize Obama's proposed bombing, it will be the first time it has stopped a president from going to war. For those who want the United States to be an empire, that is a scary thought.

These people are very worried about US "credibility," which is not the credibility of a law-abiding government but that of a mafia boss to mete out vigilante "enforcement of international norms" (they can't say "international law" -- as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon pointed out, an attack on Syria would clearly be illegal). But allowing a congressional vote has unleashed a swarm of debates, such as: should the US be the world's policeman? (itself an unfair analogy to millions of real police officers who work to keep the peace and enforce laws fairly); what exactly are "US interests" in another country's sectarian civil war?; doesn't foreign military intervention generally make these conflicts worse?; isn't diplomacy a better option for resolving what has become an international conflict?; and why should we believe our government when it makes unsubstantiated claims about reasons for a war?

Such challenges have been suppressed for 12 years, since 9/11 provided a powerful new pretext for what our government has done abroad for a century. But they have simmered uneasily among the public, and a sizeable share of that public is now organized and putting the fear of mobilized public opinion into their elected officials, including Congress and the president.

This country has a powerful, politically diverse antiwar movement that is flooding Congress with phone calls, letters, and visits. You can see the impact of that movement in the media counts of the likely congressional votes, now standing at about 248 "No" or "Likely No" in the House of Representatives, versus 50 "Yes" or "Likely Yes." A coalition of groups on the left, including the 8m-strong membership of, has mobilized tens of thousands of phone calls to Congress and antiwar vigils in 224 American cities. On the right, the libertarian Campaign for Liberty and allied groups have helped push Republicans into the no camp -- not just with phone calls, but with threats of primary election challenges.

The fear among the undecided even includes Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who previously had never met a war he didn't like. It was this fear, and unprecedented international isolation, that spurred Obama to seek congressional backing. Without such backing, a war that went badly could have serious political repercussions; and the chance of an unpredictable escalation of US involvement is significant. Although Obama said on Monday that he "hadn't decided" whether he would go ahead anyway without congressional approval, that is bluff; it would certainly bring impeachment moves in the House -- which could be quite unpleasant, even if the president were protected in the Senate.

The war party includes what one administration official told the New York Times was "the 800-pound gorilla in the room" -- AIPAC (the powerful pro-Israel lobby group). That's a lot of political muscle for this war, but it's a tough sell. McClatchy News reports how the administration's argument is "riddled with inconsistencies and hinges mainly on circumstantial evidence." Award-winning investigative journalist Gareth Porter shows that:

"[T]he Syria chemical warfare intelligence summary released by the Barack Obama administration August 30 did not represent an intelligence community assessment, [but appears to be] more politicized than the flawed 2002 Iraq WMD estimate that the George W Bush administration cited as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq."

Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson writes in the New York Times that even the classified version shown to members of Congress doesn't present any of the underlying evidence. People who were right about the Iraq war are raising huge doubts about the administration's case for war.

Obama said Monday that he was "not confident" that he would win this vote in Congress -- a stark admission of the new reality. But by leading a "full-court press" for the war, he has insulated himself from pro-war establishment backlash if the Congress votes no. He can say that he tried, but that Congress would not support him.

The majority of Americans has long seen the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as not worth fighting. But now, the majority has elected leaders running scared. If that trend continues, an untold number of people who would otherwise be killed by unjustified US military intervention in the future could be saved.

If there's a diplomatic deal over Syria's chemical weapons stocks, credit the people who opposed a rush to war -- including many members of the United States Congress.

Rate It | View Ratings

Mark Weisbrot Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Mark Weisbrot is co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is also the author of "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015)."

He writes a weekly (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Snowden, Greenwald and Wikileaks are winning

Assange case: Sweden's shame in violating human rights

The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is the complete opposite of "free trade"

GOP's assault on women bogs down in the quicksand of free contraception

Bernie is Not a Radical - He is a Pragmatist

The truth about Venezuela: a revolt of the well-off, not a "terror campaign"

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend