[Peace-discuss] 5pm, Friday, Main & Neil, Champaign - No War Against Syria! demonstration

[Stuart Levy]

*Demonstration:  No War Against Syria!*
*5PM Friday, 8/30, Main and Neil, downtown Champaign*

Our government is on the verge of undertaking direct military action 
against Syria - on pretexts as flimsy as the lies we were told to get us 
into Iraq ten years ago.    President Obama speaks of "limited" use of 
the military - when have we heard that before? Our intervention could 
easily transform Syria's destructive civil war into a far more 
destructive regional war.   It would incidentally violate international 
law - and if done without Congressional approval, it would also violate 
the War Powers Act, and probably the Constitution.

We can't just let this happen.

There are several things we can do.  Many groups around the country are 
holding demonstrations this week.   Let's have one here:

    Time:  5PM, Friday, August 30th
    Place:  corner of Main and Neil, downtown Champaign

We'll have some signs, or make your own.

Some in Congress *are* speaking up against being steamrollered into war. 
   Robert Naiman of Just Foreign Policy <http://justforeignpolicy.org/> 
reported yeaterday that there have been at least 133 signers to two 
letters, one from Barbara Lee (D-CA) and one from Scott Rigell (R-VA), 
both calling at least for no military intervention without prior 
Congressional approval.

We need to make sure Congress does not approve.   Call your Congresspeople -
     Rep. Rodney Davis,  217-403-4690 (Champaign)

     Sen. Richard Durbin, 202-224-2152 (DC), or (217) 492-4062 (Springfield)
     Sen. Mark Kirk, 202-224-2854 (DC), or 217-492-5089 (Springfield)


There are internet petitions, like this via Credo, calling for 
humanitarian assistance and multilateral diplomacy, but no use of 
military action in Syria:
http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria

or this via MoveOn, to give Congress a chance to prevent this highly 
unpopular war:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-18


Included below is an article on Syria from Phyllis Bennis, who spoke 
Wednesday on Democracy Now! <http://democracynow.org/>. [Bennis 
encourages redistribution of the article.]

*********************************

*CUI BONO -- WHO BENEFITS?*

Moral Obscenities in Syria

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175928/moral-obscenities-syria#axzz2dBddfvho

by Phyllis Bennis & David Wildman

27 August 2013

The threat of a reckless, dangerous, and illegal US or US-led assault on 
Syria is looking closer than ever.

The US government has been divided over the Syria crisis since it began. 
Some, especially in the Pentagon and some of the intelligence agencies, 
said direct military intervention would be dangerous and would 
accomplish nothing. Others, especially in Congress and some in the State 
Department, have demanded military attacks, even regime change, against 
the Syrian leadership, even before anyone made allegations of chemical 
weapons. The Obama administration has been divided too, with President 
Obama seemingly opposed to any US escalation. The American people are 
not divided---60% are against intervening in Syria's civil war even if 
chemical weapons were involved.

But the situation is changing rapidly, and the Obama administration 
appears to be moving closer to direct military intervention. That would 
make the dire situation in Syria inestimably worse.

The attack that killed so many civilians, including many children, last 
Wednesday may well have been from a chemical weapon. Doctors Without 
Borders, in touch with local hospitals they support, said that while the 
symptoms "strongly indicate" that thousands of patients were exposed to 
a neurotoxic agent, they "can neither scientifically confirm the cause 
of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack." The 
United Nations chemical weapons inspection team already in Syria to 
investigate earlier claims was granted permission by the government to 
visit the new site today; they have not yet reported any findings.

No one knows yet what actually happened, other than a horrific attack on 
civilians, many of whom died. No one has yet made public any evidence of 
what killed them, or who may responsible. All attacks on civilians are 
war crimes---regardless of whether they are carried out by the Syrian 
army, rebel militias, or US cruise missiles.

And yet the calls, the demands, the assumptions of a looming US attack 
on Syria are rising. NBC News reported that the US had "very little 
doubt" that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons./ The Wall 
Street Journal /quoted an anonymous "senior defense official" who said 
the military strikes being considered "would be conducted from ships in 
the Eastern Mediterranean using long-range missiles, without using 
manned aircraft. 'You do not need basing. You do not need over-flight. 
You don't need to worry about defenses."

Despite Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that a chemical attack was 
"undeniable," we still don't know for sure that it was a chemical 
weapon, and we certainly don't know who did it. Kerry spoke this 
afternoon, calling the attack a "moral obscenity." If it was a chemical 
attack, as appears likely, it certainly is just that. So far in this 
war, over 100,000 people have been killed and millions forced from their 
homes---aren't all of those moral obscenities?

**

*Even If*

Kerry seems to believe that this moral obscenity requires military 
action in response. Graham and McCain said so earlier. But he's wrong. 
It's likely that it was a chemical agent of some sort that led to mass 
sickness and many deaths in the Damascus suburb. And maybe it /was/ the 
Syrian regime that was responsible for it. The questions that would then 
need to be asked, the questions "even if," have to start with "so what 
should we do?"

Does anyone really believe that a military strike on an alleged chemical 
weapons factory would help the Syrian people, would save any lives, 
would help bring an end to this horrific civil war? What's the best we 
could hope for, that a cruise missile strike would actually succeed, 
would accurately find its target, and explode a warehouse full of 
chemical agents into airborne clouds of death?

**

*Illegal Even If*

The US government is creating a false dichotomy---it's either a military 
strike, or we let them get away with it. No one is talking about any 
other kind of international accountability, nothing like the 
International Criminal Court. Last month, the White House "law group" 
noted that arming the rebels might violate international law. Do they 
think a cruise missile strike is okay? We heard President Obama a couple 
of days ago refer to international law. He said "if the US goes in and 
attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence 
that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether 
international law supports it ... and those are considerations that we 
have to take into account."

But what we're hearing now is that the model under consideration for a 
US military strike on Syria would be that of Kosovo. Remember that one, 
back in 1999, at the end of the Bosnia war? That time, knowing it was 
impossible to get Security Council agreement for an air war against 
Serbia over the disputed enclave of Kosovo, the US and its allies simply 
announced that they would get their international permission slip 
somewhere else. That would be the NATO high command. What a surprise, 
the NATO generals agreed with their respective presidents and prime 
ministers, and said sure, we think it's a great idea. The problem is, 
the UN Charter is very clear on what constitutes a legal use of military 
force---and permission from NATO isn't on that very short list. If the 
Security Council does not say yes, and there is no legal claim of 
immediate self-defense (which even the US isn't claiming regarding 
Syria), any use or threat of use of military force is illegal. Period. 
Full stop. Claiming that NATO or someone else said it was okay isn't 
part of international law---the air war was illegal in Kosovo, and it 
would be illegal in Syria.

**

*Cui Bono....*

But let's go back a minute. Let's remember that we /don't/ know for sure 
that it was a chemical weapon. We /don't /know for sure that it was a 
weapon at all. Crucially, let's remember we /don't/ have any evidence of 
who might have used such a weapon. So then what do we ask? Maybe we 
start with the age old question, cui bono? Who benefits?

It's easier to say who loses---the Syrian people, most importantly the 
victims and their families. Whole communities are being decimated. (We 
shouldn't forget that Americans will pay a price too---a new war will 
result in more military spending. That will create pressure on Congress 
to cut domestic spending even further, cutting vital social programs 
even more.)

But who benefits is a little more complicated.

It's certainly not impossible that the Syrian regime, known to have had 
a chemical weapons arsenal, used such a weapon. If so, why? Despite 
remaining under pressure from sanctions and facing increasing 
international isolation, Damascus has been seeing some success on the 
battlefield. It's certainly possible a mid-level Syrian officer, worried 
about some past defeat and desperately afraid of being held accountable 
for it, might have chosen to use such a weapon to gain a gruesome 
battlefield victory despite the increase in the threat of direct 
military intervention. But it is very unlikely the regime's leadership 
would have made such a choice. Not because they "wouldn't kill their own 
people," they've been doing just that. But because they stood to lose 
far more than any potential gain. It's not impossible. But as brutal as 
this regime is, it isn't crazy. It's unlikely.

Then there's the other side, the diverse opposition whose strongest 
fighters are those claiming allegiance to al Qaeda and similar extremist 
organizations. Those who benefit from this attack, are those eager for 
greater US and western military intervention against the Assad regime in 
Damascus. Further, al Qaeda and its offshoots have always been eager to 
get the US military---troops, warplanes, ships, bases, whatever---into 
their territory. It makes it so much easier to attack them there. 
Politically it remains what US counter-intelligence agents long ago 
called a "recruitment tool" for al Qaeda. They loved the Iraq war for 
that reason. They would love the Syrian war all the more if US targets 
were brought in. All the debate about "red lines," the domestic and 
international political pressure to "do something," the threats to the 
UN inspectors on the ground---who inside Syria do we think is cheering 
that on?

(And as for the opposition's capacity and/or willingness to use such 
weapons...we should also remember that the opposition includes some 
defectors. Who knows what skills and weapons access they brought with 
them? And do we really doubt that al Qaeda wanna-be extremists, many of 
them not even Syrians, would hesitate to kill civilians in a suburb of 
Damascus?)

**

*UN Inspectors Pulled Out?*

The most dangerous signal of US intentions may be the call for the 
United Nations weapons inspectors to withdraw. To his credit, Secretary 
General Ban Ki-moon rejected the Obama administration's call, and kept 
the inspection team in place, to do its work.

On the eve of the war in Iraq, 48 hours before US warplanes began their 
assault on Baghdad, George W. Bush issued an even more direct demand for 
UN weapons inspectors and humanitarian workers to be withdrawn. Then 
Secretary-General Kofi Annan pulled his team out, understandably afraid 
for their lives. But what if those scores of UN staffers had been given 
the choice to stay? Might the risk of killing dozens, scores of UN 
international staff, have made the US pause for just a moment before 
beginning its assault? Maybe those staffers would have changed history. 
This time around, like before, diplomacy rather than military action is 
the only way to enable the UN inspectors to continue their work to find 
the truth.

Let's be clear. Any US military attack, cruise missiles or anything 
else, will not be to protect civilians---it will mean taking sides once 
again in a bloody, complicated civil war. And al Qaeda would be very 
pleased.

This time, maybe the Obama administration isn't about to launch cruise 
missiles against Syria. Maybe there's still time to prevent it. Right 
now, those risking their lives on the ground to help the Syrian people 
are the UN inspectors. If the US is really concerned about their safety, 
and recognizes the legitimacy of UN inspectors, the Obama administration 
should immediately engage with the UN leadership and with the Syrian, 
Russian and other relevant governments to insure their safety while they 
continue their crucial efforts. Cruise missiles will make that work 
impossible. What's needed now is tough diplomacy, not 
politically-motivated military strikes that will make a horrific war 
even worse.

*SIGN THE PETITION TO PREVENT GREATER US INTERVENTION IN SYRIA*
http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria

_________________________

Phyllis Bennis is a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. David 
Wildman is the Executive Secretary for Human Rights and Racial Justice 
of the Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church.


Phyllis Bennis
Director, New Internationalism Project
Institute for Policy Studies
1112 16th Street NW #600
Washington DC 20036
tel: (202) 234-9382 ex 5206
fax: (202) 387-7915
Follow me on Facebook! 
<https://mail.ips-dc.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=THoDsGCx2E2kdQ_lC7q8mdYfeMcq6s9IOT9tCo7lvgpyMgon1531kAsspVs4wPTLqScpIeP8FD4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.facebook.com%2fPhyllisBennis>

And sign up for my New Internationalism Newsletter 
<http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/357/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5665>




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130829/6ba058e7/attachment-0001.html>