[Peace-discuss] Charlie Rangel: Why I Oppose Syria Strikes

[Robert Naiman]

This is a crucial document. Right now Obama is calling every single member
of the Congressional Black Caucus and personally lobbying them to support
bombing Syria, telling them it's a test of their personal loyalty to him.
Help get this piece by Charlie Rangel where it needs to go.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/05/charlie-rangel-why-i-oppose-syria-strikes.html

Charlie Rangel: Why I Oppose Syria Strikes
by Charles Rangel, Michael Shank Sep 5, 2013 12:57 PM EDT

Instead of getting involved in a costly war, the president should combat
poverty, gun violence, and inequality at home. By Rep. Charles Rangel and
Michael Shank.

America seems increasingly inclined to engage in a new military conflict
every few years, faced with a new populace to defend, a new democracy to
design, and a new dictator to dethrone.  We intend to wage a so-called
"limited war," when there is, in fact, no such thing.  It is unfortunate
that we don't give enough thought on why and how we decide to get involved,
and who we send into harm's way when we do.

America’s involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan, by no means, have been
limited wars.  Instead they are protracted, intractable conflicts worsened
by our intervention. Wars, by nature, are unpredictable. Once a war is
started, the reaction cannot be controlled.

What enables this war-friendly philosophy is the fact that there is no
military draft to dodge.  Our soldiers are signed up and ready to go, so
there’s no American public to convince because so few have any skin in the
game. Nor is it necessary to do because the president may decide to proceed
without war authorization from Congress, something several presidents have
done before, from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton.

We applaud President Barack Obama's decision to seek congressional approval
for U.S. involvement in Syria. However Syria is not an American problem; it
is an international problem requiring an international solution.  Without
question, the Arab League, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation, the
United Nations General Assembly and U.N. Security Council, should all be at
the table talking about what to do with this regional conflict that is
being conducted as a proxy war.

Moreover, we need not add U.S. weaponry to the Syrian conflict. We have
seen enough killing; we don’t need to increase the casualties, especially
at a high cost to America’s taxpayers.  For every Tomahawk missile America
might use in Syria—at cost estimates ranging from $607,000 to $1.4 million
or more, the total costs will likely exceed Libya’s bill of over $1 billion
in a "limited war," or in the billions according to Joint Chiefs of Staff
Chairman Martin Dempsey for extended operations—consider how we could
better use those monies to win hearts and minds abroad or help Americans
here at home.

Imagine if the urgency and eagerness, which now characterizes Washington’s
ramp-up for war with Syria, was the same tenor and tone applied to issues
of national security here at home and the problems impacting real Americans
on a day-to-day basis?

Imagine if the Senate and House committees would come back early from
August recess to discuss America’s food insecurity problem, ready to
relieve the 50 million Americans living in food-insecure households who do
not know where their next meal would come from. How patriotic that would be.

Imagine if the administration and Congress reached a bipartisan consensus
on the poverty and income inequality crisis in America, where one out of
every two Americans is living in poverty or low-income. We are at historic
levels here, with poverty rates not seen since the 1960s and income
inequality gaps not seen since the Great Depression.  Now that’s a real
security problem.

Imagine if the U.S. government—its executive, legislative and judiciary
branches —came together to stop weapons trafficking, improve gun safety,
and radically reform our criminal justice system so that mass incarceration
was no longer a scourge on our society, inhibiting the potential of
millions of Americans and further fettering economic productivity.  That’s
how we can truly keep Americans safe.

There is a crisis in America that few in Washington are acting on with
urgency. There are weapons being mightily misused in America.  There are
deaths by the hundreds on a daily basis in America.  The only new war we
need at this point is a war on our poverty, a war on our income inequality,
and a war on food insecurity.

Imagine if we waged these kinds of wars instead.  Now that’s a real
national security agenda.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130906/15a48e6f/attachment.html>