Does Your Congressman Want To Embroil The U.S. In A War in Syria? Most Do-- Both Parties

Bob Menendez (D-NJ) wants to drag the U.S. into another Middle East War

There are a lot of victims and a lot of "bad guys" in the Syrian civil war. But, from a U.S. perspective, there are no good guys. Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Bob Menendez (D-NJ) voted 15-3 to arm the rebels. The three dissenting votes were from Mark Udall (D-CO), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Chris Murphy (D-CT). Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) warned of the dangers of arming rebel forces whose intentions are unknown. "I think we have to ask the question, 'Who are we arming?'" Sen. Udall asked fellow senators. "To tell you the truth, I don't think we know.…It changes every day."

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, said lawmakers who supported the legislation were in effect supporting the provision of arms to rebel groups that are "the allies of al Qaeda," referring to the Islamist al-Nusra Front, a powerful force in the insurgency against Mr. Assad. "It's an irony you cannot overcome."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) countered Mr. Paul's argument, saying arms now were flowing to Nusra and to the Assad regime, marginalizing more moderate elements in the resistance. To address concerns that U.S. antiaircraft weapons could fall into the hands of extremists, the legislation would require the president to certify that such arms, if he decides to provide them, have been equipped with tracking, disabling or anti-tamper devices.

Tuesday's exchange in the Golan Heights marked the first time the Syrian army has acknowledged firing intentionally at Israeli troops since the civil war began. In a statement, Syria's army said it had destroyed an Israeli jeep that crossed over its border. Israel's army chief, Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, denied that allegation-- instead accusing the Syrian leader of fomenting instability, in a sharp departure from previous Israeli characterizations of cross-border fire as errant spillover from Syria's war.

"We will not allow the Golan Heights to become comfort zone for Assad's reprisals," Lt. Gen. Gantz said. "If he destabilizes the Golan Heights, he will bear the consequences." Tensions between the sides have risen in recent weeks after Israeli airstrikes near Damascus targeted what Western intelligence officials say were missiles en route to Hezbollah.

The legislation was authored by Menendez who made a bunch of spurious claims that "Vital national interests are at stake and we cannot watch from the sidelines." There is a similar piece of legislation working its way through the House, cosponsored by AIPAC/Israeli agent Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY) who is salivating at the thought of killing Syrians and Iranians and sounds more like John McCain and Lindsey Graham when it comes to war than what people think a Democratic is supposed to sound like. He was elected by his Democratic colleagues as the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Relations Committee. He's one of the worst and most repulsive warmongers on teh Democratic side of the aisle, with very dubious loyalty to the U.S. when it comes to matters that even remotely concern Israel. And, there is no light between reactionary GOP warmonger Ed Royce (R-CA), the chairman of the committee, and Engel. Tuesday he said arming the rebels "would put our Syria policy on the best possible course... "Syria presents us with a series of difficult policy choices, but the most sensible of the alternatives is to support the moderate opposition. Otherwise, we leave the field to pro-Iran and pro-al-Qaeda forces to determine Syria's fate, and Syria will remain a humanitarian and strategic disaster."

President Barack Obama rebuffed a proposal last year to arm moderate rebel groups despite support for the move by top cabinet members, including the then-Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In recent weeks, however, Mr. Obama and his advisers have begun looking anew at the option of providing arms to moderate rebels groups, possibly in concert with Britain and France, according to senior administration officials.

The Senate bill authorizes the U.S. to provide small arms and training to units of the Free Syrian Army and other groups opposed to the Assad regime "that have been properly and fully vetted and share common values and interests with the United States." The bill says antiaircraft systems can't be transferred.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), an outspoken critic of Mr. Obama's response to the Syria crisis, said the legislation "sends a signal to the administration" that it needs to get more involved in helping end the crisis in Syria.

But Mr. McCain said more action will be needed beyond providing small arms "if we are going to reverse the tide that's now taking place in favor of Bashar Assad." Sen. McCain said the rebels need heavier weapons that those authorized under the current Senate bill.

Marco Rubio knows less than the average college junior about foreign policy. When he read his talking points, he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. I got the idea Rand Paul wanted to punch him in the mouth and send him home crying. “The U.S. cannot solve every conflict on the planet. But I believe it’s in the national interest of the United States to ensure that the strongest, best-organized, and best-funded elements in a post-Assad Syria and even before his fall are interests that are aligned with us and are friendlier to us than the alternative.”

These are the senators who blundered into dragging the U.S. into another war in the Middle East:

• Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
• Bob Corker (R-TN)
• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
• Jim Risch (R-ID)
• Ben Cardin (D-MD)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Bob Casey (D-PA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Chris Coons (D-DE)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Tim Kane (D-VA)

Lindsey Graham, one of the Senate's most vocal advocates of war-- anywhere, any time-- isn't on the Foreign Relations Committee. But he's been braying up a storm about sending U.S. forces into Syria. The Democrat running against him in Jay Stamper, who sounds more like Rand Paul when it comes to waging the kinds of aggressive wars Graham can't get enough of. A few weeks ago he told us that "the main reason we should all care about retiring Lindsey Graham is the carelessness with which he advocates the use of American military force abroad. There is something disturbing about someone who has never seen combat being so consistently eager to deploy other people’s sons and daughters overseas. Maybe that’s why he has falsely and repeatedly claimed to be a Gulf War veteran." He continued:

I believe that Graham may be one of those people who appreciates our military's capabilities and are frustrated when they aren’t being employed. It’s like having a brand new sports car in your garage all gassed up, the keys in the ignition, but not being able to take it for a spin.

Having voted to authorize the use of force in both Iraq and Afghanistan, was Graham not chastened when these two wars left over 100,000 civilians and U.S. soldiers dead or wounded and our economy on life support. Did he consider resigning, maybe to write a memoir in the hope that we could at least learn from his mistakes. At the very least, did he shy away from any future discussion of foreign policy. No-- not Lindsey. Instead, he’s weighing in on Syria. After reviewing all the facts, he’s come to a conclusion that we need boots on the ground and we need to bomb the country with cruise missiles.

There are so many ways this can backfire. Cornering Assad with U.S. force would make it more likely-- not less-– that he would resort to using chemical weapons out of desperation. The Arab proverb is “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” and intervening would make us friends with the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria’s al-Qaida. We could end up spending money and American lives replacing a brutal dictatorship with a radical theocracy. Lindsey actually wants us to arm fractured rebel groups, many of whom have already committed war crimes. Their empowerment would risk the disintegration of any central government and could turn Syria into a sort of lawless failed state like Somalia, even more of a refuge for terrorists than it is currently. Not to know how wrongheaded it is to intervene is to ignore the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan and also to ignore the complexity of the Syrian situation, which virtually guarantees undesired and unintended consequences.

Lindsey, can you look into the eyes of these troops, or their parents, and honestly tell them that deploying on a mission to Syria has a high probability of making Americans safer, advancing the interests of the United States or contributing to regional stability in the Middle East? In fact, intervening in the crisis will not do any of these things.

Can you look into the eyes of the veterans of past wars who are disabled and homeless and tell them they just need to wait longer to get the help they need because we need those billions of dollars to fight yet another war? And how can we claim to support the troops when we send them to war and forget when they get home, voting to cut benefits for people who risked everything to serve our country?

Has Lindsey Graham thought about how $1.4 trillion in war spending could have been used to improve people’s lives? We could have increased funding for the National Institutes of Health by 600% every year for the last 10 years, speeding the development of treatments and cures for cancer, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, MS, and countless other diseases that destroy more lives every year than any Islamic terrorist could dream of. We could have provided low-income healthcare to 70 million people for 10 years, or hired an additional 2 million public elementary school teachers for 10 years. We could have provided 17 million military veterans VA medical care for 10 years, or provided 4-year university scholarships to 40 million students.

Don’t let Lindsey Graham (or anyone else) question your patriotism because you disagree with his foreign policy views. This is a senator who single-handedly blocked President Obama’s popular choice for Defense Secretary-- not out of principled opposition-- but to gain leverage over the President on a completely unrelated issue. As a result, the United States was without a Secretary of Defense at a time of escalating tensions overseas.

Want to help an advocate for peace replace a warmonger always trying to prove how macho he is by sending troops to war? You can support Jay Stamper's campaign here.