<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I would guess that if polls in the next days indicate that most Americans oppose bombing/attacking Syria as Obama proposes, then probably the Congress will oppose it also. At least that is my hope. This does not mean that everyone should not bombard Congressional representatives with strong statements of opposition to Obama's bellicosity.<div><br></div><div>That people like Democratic Sen. Durbin of Illinois, a bellwether politician, appear to refuse to go against the administration, on the other hand, is not a hopeful omen. <br><div><br></div><div>--mkb</div><div><br><div><div>On Aug 31, 2013, at 5:41 PM, <a href="mailto:m_eisenscher@uslaboragainstwar.org">m_eisenscher@uslaboragainstwar.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<h2><b>Saturday, August 31, 2013<br><br>
</b></h2><h3><b>We should know better than to bomb
Syria</b></h3><font size="3">
<a href="http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2013/08/we-should-know-better-than-to-bomb-syria.html">
http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2013/08/we-should-know-better-than-to-bomb-syria.html</a>
<br><br>
pic:Freedom House/Creative Commons<br>
<b><i>By Subhash Kateel<br><br>
</i></b>You have to pardon me for being really tired of hearing highbrow
justifications for murder from people that should know better. I
have spent the summer watching the murders of two Miami teens named
Trayvon and
<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/27/3588485/family-of-teen-who-died-in-miami.html">
Israel</a> be justified by a bunch of people that should know better
who<a href="http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2013/07/trayvon-martin-and-right-to-lose-faith.html">
misinterpreted</a> and intentionally
<a href="http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2013/08/will-cops-who-killed-reefa-be-allowed.html">
misrepresented</a>the law and basic norms we should hold sacred.
<br><br>
I have spent the past decade as an ex- New Yorker hearing other people
who should know better (I stopped calling them experts) use bad
intelligence and worse intentions to
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFaSpca_3Q">justify a war in
Iraq</a> fought in our name that killed thousands of
<a href="http://www.iraqbodycount.org/">civilians</a> and
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html">US
troops</a>. <br><br>
I have also spent most of my living years watching an earlier cohort of
people who should’ve known better
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_doxgN-V5Fg">explain away</a> the
arming, training and propping up of
“<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm">freedom
fighters</a>” who killed Soviets in Afghanistan in the 70’s and 80’s
before birthing a movement that turned those tactics on the city I called
home a decade ago.<br><br>
I have spent this week feeling horrified by our nations ability to
commemorate Martin Luther King’s eloquent expressions of nonviolence in
the “I Have A Dream” speech while simultaneously
<a href="http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/would_martin_luther_king_have_supported_a_syrian_intervention">
creating a consensus</a> to bomb Syria. I just can’t fight the feeling,
as I said on Facebook, that
<a href="http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/resources/article/king_quotes_on_war_and_peace/">
Martin Luther King</a> is probably rolling in his grave and throwing
up.<br><br>
The fact that I respect some of the people pushing that conversation,
such as Van Jones,
<a href="http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/27/analysis-obama-leading-from-behind-again/">
who was on CNN Tuesday</a> making the case for “surgical strikes” against
Syria, is a particularly hard punch in the gut, even after Van took the
time to engage me personally and talk me through his reasons for
supporting surgical strikes. But this is not about Van per se, as
much as it is about all of us who should know better, especially those of
us who just a decade ago, fought hard against the lie that you can save
people by bombing them.<br>
<a href="http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2013/08/we-should-know-better-than-to-bomb-syria.html">
<span><17abffb.jpg></span></a><br>
Sadly, this is not about Syria either. Because while the Syrian
people definitely deserve justice, democracy and the ability to not be
killed by their leaders, I am finding it hard to believe that any
<a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/61461/syria-facts-the-complete-guide-to-all-the-global-players-involved-in-the-syrian-conflict">
foreign powers</a> playing politics or proxy wars in their country really
give a damn about Syrian life. <br><br>
To believe that, I would have to believe that the Saudi government,
perhaps the most oppressive in the world, is
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-the-saudi-connection-the-prince-with-close-ties-to-washington-at-the-heart-of-the-push-for-war-8785049.html">
arming Syrian rebels</a> out of a sudden urge to end oppression even
after
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15bahrain.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0">
helping their Bahraini counterparts</a> rain down murderously on the
Bahraini people’s own Arab Spring.<br><br>
I would have to believe that the same Israeli government that is
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/un-panel-israeli-settlements-illegal_n_2589394.html">
building illegal settlements</a> on land they are perpetually promising
to swap for an elusive Palestinian state has an eye on Syria because they
envision it teeming with democracy. <br><br>
I would have to believe that the French government is supporting air
strikes because they seek to end senseless slaughter, ever after they
<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-admits-frances-role-in-rwandan-genocide-1911272.html">
shut their eyes</a> and closed their mouths in 1994 as their Hutu allies
in Rwanda massacred with machetes (not chemical weapons) a half million
Tutsis in one month.<br><br>
Believing that is easier than believing that the Russian leadership has
set aside their internal
<a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/58593/putin-s-war-on-gays-a-timeline-of-homophobia">
gay bashing</a> and crackdown on
<a href="http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/06/07/russia-protect-human-rights-defenders-chechnya">
Chechnya</a> to stick up for Syria’s various minority groups,
<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2011/0929/Q-A-with-Syrian-jihadist-Minorities-have-nothing-to-fear-in-post-Assad-Syria">
some of whom</a> fear the fall of the Assad regime.<br><br>
But I would also have to believe that our own government has finally
acknowledged the evils of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East
despite
<a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran">
helping</a> the formerly friendly Saddam Hussein gas scores of Iranians
to death,
<a href="http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/us_shipping_thousands_of_cluster_bombs_to_saudi_arabia_despite_international_ban">
sending the Saudis</a> enough cluster bombs to turn Damascus into a
parking lot, and tolerating for decades Israel’s
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons">
presumed possession</a> of a nuclear weapon.<br><br>
But it is hard to believe any of those things, let alone believe that the
President or his supporters believes any of those things.<br><br>
That doesn’t mean that I don’t believe Syrians are dying by the
thousands, that the Assad dictatorship bears the responsibility for a
bulk of the killing or that Syrians don’t have the right to defend
themselves. It doesn’t even mean that I don’t believe that chemical
weapons were used last week, even if I do believe that it wouldn’t hurt
to
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-ban-idUSBRE97S0BR20130829">
wait a few days</a> for the UN to verify it. I just don’t believe
that American leaders have shown American people how bombing Syria will
stop any of it. <br><br>
American leaders can’t even prove that the rebels
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/syria-rebels-us-aid">they have
covertly helped</a> for a couple years are any better than the Assad
regime. While plenty of members of the Free Syrian Army and
millions of Syrian civilians fight in earnest for a free Syria, some of
the strongest rebel factions are
<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-29/al-qaeda-links-cloud-syrian-war-as-u-s-seeks-clarity-on-rebels.html">
said to be close</a> to Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates. There is at
least some evidence that the same Syrians that rose up peacefully against
Assad have also
<a href="http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/12556/the-growing-challenge-to-the-syrian-regime-and-the">
stood up</a> to those same Al Qaeda-esque elements in rebel controlled
areas. Precisely which faction of the loosely coalesced Free Syrian
Army and which segment of Syrian society will be helped or hurt by
surgical strikes is anyone’s guess. <br>
<a href="http://www.jadaliyya.com/content_images/3/notzawahiricopy.jpg">
<img src="http://www.jadaliyya.com/content_images/3/notzawahiricopy.jpg" width="320" height="225" alt="[]">
</a><br>
“Syria is for the free, not for Zawahiri and not for Bashar” pic:
<a href="http://jadaliyya.com">jadaliyya.com</a><br>
But the people tasked with educated guesses can’t even really tell us if
the
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/brief-history-of-key-military-interventions-by-the-us/2013/08/26/acb0590e-0eb1-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_gallery.html">
other countries</a> we have surgically striked, covertly supported the
opposition in or outright invaded such as
<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent-1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html">
Libya</a>,
<a href="http://origins.osu.edu/article/century-us-relations-iraq">
Iraq</a> or
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/23/obamas_war_us_involvement_in_afghanistan">
Afghanistan</a> are any better or worse after our government’s stated
attempts to change regimes, eradicate weapons of mass destruction, kill
terrorists and stop the killing sprees of dictators. We don’t even
know if Americans are better off after all of this. <br><br>
In that context, people should know better than to push Americans that
barely know anything about Syria into agreeing to bomb it to freedom with
<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042571741346530.html">
less
international</a>
support<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/polls-americans-attack-syria-support-limited-action/story?id=20118605">
, less public support</a> and less clarity of purpose than either of the
Bushes had when they went to war with Iraq or
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/">
Carter</a>
/<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/10/ghost_wars_how_reagan_armed_the">
Reagan </a>had when they supported the covert action in Afghanistan that
we are still paying for today.<br><br>
But some of my friends that should know better have asked people like me,
who barely know enough, what our alternative is. It is a partially
fair/partially perverse question to answer for those of us far from the
annals of power. <br><br>
The people with the least resources and the least monopoly on violence
are always asked and expected to be the first to seek alternatives to
violence. And throughout American history, those who are less resourced
generally comply. That is why we celebrate the words and
actions of a Martin Luther King, who never picked up a gun (despite at
one time
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html">
owning several</a>) while pursuing a path of principled non-violent
resistance to stop people from being killed, kicked and kept at the
bottom of America’s caste ladder. <br><br>
The fact that the less resourced of us are always expected to choose the
path of peace while those in power with the most resources and biggest
monopoly on violence are never saddled with that expectation shouldn’t
sit well with any of us. If there is a redline, it should compel us
to never again pretend that we are bombing, shooting and killing in a
country under the pretext of saving it. It should force our leaders to
spend the same energy and money they do on military hardware and advisers
to build the infrastructure that can create an alternative to armed
conflict. It should force our diplomats to spend more energy ending
conflicts and less fighting to extradite “fugitives” like Edward
Snowden. It should push all of us to stop audaciously hoping and
start effectively seeking peaceful solutions to violent problems.
Doing any of this doesn’t require us to be pacifists, isolationists or
cut-and-runners. It just requires us to know better and act on what
we know. <br>
<hr>
</font><font size="5">War costs could escalate quickly<br>
</font><font size="3">
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/30/pentagon-war-costs-syria/2748985/">
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/30/pentagon-war-costs-syria/2748985/</a>
<br>
THE COSTS OF WAR<br>
If President Obama is weighing his military options against Syria, a
limited strike is a possibility. Here's a look at some of the costs of
war:<br>
<span><17ac059.jpg></span><br>
Source: <a href="http://globalsecurity.org">globalsecurity.org</a>, <a href="http://costofwar.com">costofwar.com</a>, the Pentagon, USA TODAY
research<br>
Janet Loehrke and Joan Murphy USA TODAY<br>
Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY2:04 a.m. EDT August 31, 2013<br>
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/6bdff011b551e046e40bb63adc8f905d04e16ecd/c=240-0-4030-2848&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/USATODAY/test/2013/08/30/1377892810000-AP-US-Libya.jpg" alt="AP US Libya">
<br>
(Photo: MC3 Jonathan Sunderman via AP)<br><br>
<ul>
<li>President Obama is considering an attack on Syria in response to use
of chemical weapons
</li><li>Costs could include missiles, extra hours for ships and other
equipment
</li><li>Pentagon said this year a deep engagement in Syria could cost more
than $1 billion
</li></ul><br>
WASHINGTON Waging war, even on a limited basis, is a costly
venture.<br><br>
An attack on Syria would be no exception to the rule.<br><br>
"This would come in under $100 million, if it goes off as
advertised," said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University
and a former Defense official in the Clinton administration.<br><br>
The mostly likely scenario for a punitive strike on Syria: land-attack
cruise missiles launched from five U.S. Navy destroyers cruising in the
eastern Mediterranean. That attack would be in response to a chemical
weapon attack that the Obama administration says killed 1,400 civilians,
including 429 children.<br><br>
Each of those sophisticated missiles, which fly as far as 1,000 miles,
evade radar and explode within feet of their targets, costing about $1.1
million, according to the Navy. The destroyers generally carry dozens of
them, Adams said.<br><br>
"The ships, missiles and salaries are already paid for," Adams
said. "There may be an incremental cost in the tens of millions for
operating the ships outside their routine operating
schedule."<br><br>
<b>FULL COVERAGE:
</b>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/topic/f7070275-0d4d-4961-a151-d2ab6d548ef8/syria-conflict/">
The Syrian conflict</a><br><br>
<b>MORE:
</b>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/30/us-syria-military-strike-risks/2748877/">
Five risks of U.S. military strike on Syria</a><br><br>
<b>OBAMA:
</b>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/30/obama-syria-chemical-weapons/2746091/">
No 'boots on the ground'</a><br><br>
<b>STORY:
</b>
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/30/kerry-syria-chemical-weapons-obama/2742369/">
White House releases evidence of Syria chemical attack</a><br><br>
In any event, the cost of such a limited attack wouldn't be likely to
force the Pentagon to ask Congress for more money, Adams said.<br><br>
But those costs would escalate quickly, and the Pentagon would have to
ask for more money if follow-up strikes occurred or the action
escalated.<br><br>
Take Libya, for example. The Pentagon spent $1.1 billion in 2011 to
launch attacks that destroyed that country's air defenses and established
a no-fly zone. On the first day of that assault, 110 Tomahawk missiles
were fired.<br><br>
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
estimated some of the costs for intervening more deeply in Syria in a
letter to the Senate in July. He estimated that strikes with weapons
launched from outside the country would require hundreds of warplanes,
ships and submarines and could cost billions.<br><br>
They would be aimed at "targets that enable the regime to conduct
military operations, proliferate advanced weapons and defend itself.
Potential targets include high-value regime air defense, air, ground,
missile and naval forces as well as the supporting military facilities
and command nodes."<br><br>
In that scenario, hundreds of targets would be hit, and depending how
long the attack lasts, "the costs would be in the
billions."<br><br>
Other options, and costs, according to Dempsey:<br><br>
•Advising, training and assisting Syrian rebels: $500 million per year to
start. "The scale could range from several hundred to several
thousand troops with the costs varying accordingly," Dempsey
wrote.<br><br>
•Establishing a no-fly zone: $500 million to start, $1 billion per month
to maintain. Keeping Syria's air forces grounded requires destroying its
air defenses, shooting down enemy aircraft and bombing
airfields.<br><br>
•Controlling chemical weapons: More than $1 billion per month. It would
require the initial attack and a no-fly zone. It would also require
ground forces to assault and secure critical sites. Not all of the
weapons would be secured, Dempsey wrote.<br><br>
Without Syria, the Pentagon is on pace to spend about $574 billion total
this year. Of that, about $86 billion was spent on the Afghanistan
War.<br>
</font></div>
_______________________________________________<br>ufpj-activist mailing list<br><br>Post: <a href="mailto:ufpj-activist@lists.mayfirst.org">ufpj-activist@lists.mayfirst.org</a><br>List info: <a href="https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist</a><br><br>To Unsubscribe<br> Send email to: <a href="mailto:ufpj-activist-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org">ufpj-activist-unsubscribe@lists.mayfirst.org</a><br> Or visit: <a href="https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu">https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu</a><br><br>You are subscribed as: <a href="mailto:brussel@illinois.edu">brussel@illinois.edu</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>