Another Imperialist War in Syria

After many months of bloodshed and waiting for the inevitable, President Obama announced over this last weekend that he will use military force against Syria. He has also stated that he will "seek" "Congressional authorization" before using military force. This at first may sound like a positive nod towards the Constitution's clear prescription that only Congress may declare war. But just by calling it a "Congressional authorization", it gives the impression that it will not be crafted like a Constitutional declaration of war. As Daniel McAdams has noted,

The administration's first draft looks a lot like the disastrously broad authorization passed after the attacks on 9/11 that Bush and then Obama have used for years to conduct global warfare. There is no reason to doubt that the draft as written would give the president all the authority he needs to attack Iran the minute the ink is dry. It has no sunset and is not restricted to the "shot across the bow" that Obama has stated he intends. 

And as Ron Paul has pointed out, the President has made it clear that any Congressional authorization is inconsequential to the fact that Presidents often act on their own authority, as Obama has done before in Libya. 

So why Syria? The U.S. government is peddling the claim that the regime of Assad has used chemical weapons against it's own people on August 21, resulting in the deaths of a few hundred civilians. But there is no concrete evidence that proves that the Assad regime is responsible for the attack. For all we know, the anti-Assad rebels or another third party could have been responsible for the attack. But desperate to bring the country into another no-win war, the U.S. government will continue to believe it's own lies. A war in Syria will not bring peace or stability to the region or stop the Assad regime from waging war against his people. It will inevitably lead to a wider war, while possibly triggering increased Russian and possibly Chinese involvement and intervention in the Middle East. A war in Syria will also lead to a further destabilization of the entire region that has already been plagued by what seems to be perpetual war. It seems that the U.S. government is gearing up for Iraq 2.0. It is astonishing that the U.S. government will attempt to justify a war on similar grounds that it did to justify a previous war (Iraq 2003) that were later found to be false. 

There is no good case or justification for any war against Syria. Syria has not directly attacked the United States homeland and does not have the military capability to invade and conquer the United States. Syria certainly does not threaten America national security. Being the policemen of the world has made the U.S. less safe, less prosperous and less free. And as stated before, the truth of the matter is that there is no concrete proof that the Assad regime even used chemical weapons. But even if it did, does that alone justify American intervention into Syria? It does not. As Doug Bandow has put it "the use of chemical weapons does not justify war. Syria is not a party to the claimed “international consensus” against chemical weapons, having never joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Although classed as a weapon of mass destruction, chemical agents are difficult to deploy and not uniquely deadly. At least 99 percent of the battlefield deaths in World War I were caused by other means." 


Daniel McAdams puts it more succinctly:


It does not matter whether or not Obama gets Congressional approval for the strike. It does not matter whether 50 percent plus one in Congress vote in favor of an attack on Syria. It does not matter whether some form of chemical weapons were used in the war in Syria. It does not matter who used them if they were indeed used. It does not matter whether the Saudis are demanding that we overthrow Assad. It does not matter whether the Turks are demanding we overthrow Assad. It does not matter whether the Israelis demand that we overthrow Assad. 

What matters is that there is no grounds for the US to make war on Syria. It has not attacked us; it does not threaten us. On the contrary, by arming and training the jihadist rebels fighting against the Syria government, it is the US that is threatening Syria. It is the US that is the aggressor. It is the US government that through its actions opens the US to all manner of retaliation in response to its initiation of aggression in Syria and elsewhere.

A debate on weapons or a vote in Congress or the mad ravings of the neocons and humantiarian imperialists means precisely nothing in light of this simple truth.

Nonintervention and neutrality, the Jeffersonian principle of "peace, commerce and honest friendship will all nations-entangling alliances with none" should be the course that the U.S. pursues in Syria and the rest of the world. American foreign policy should be reoriented towards protecting the United States from imminent invasion or attack by another government instead of military adventurism or destabilizing other countries in a quest for empire via military and political dominance. There is no moral, economic, or constitutional justification for an empire comprised of over 800 military bases in over a 135 countries around the world. The only just wars are defensive wars and only a return to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers on foreign policy will put America on a course back towards prosperity and liberty.