Do Progressives Have The Guts To Stand Up Against War-- Even If Their Own Party Chiefs Back It?

Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid are asking a lot of progressives who are skeptical over the rush to bomb Syria. Aside from asking them to overlook the lack of definitive proof that it was Assad who used the chemical weapons and to overlook the fact that the strategy to punish him is fatally flawed, they're also asking them to forget about their own integrity and-- in some cases, more importantly-- their own constituents' expressed desires about keeping the U.S. out of another pointless Mideast war. But Obama, who has left the Congressional Progressive Caucus out in the cold for his entire time in office, and ignored progressives on every single issue bare none, is now begging that biggest of all Democratic caucuses to back him on war.

Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, the two CPC co-chairs, are on opposite sides of the fence. Ellison, unfortunately, seems to have bought into the Inside the Beltway war hysteria. Grijalva, the more experienced of the two leaders, has not:

The Americans don’t want it. The Germans don’t want it. And the Brits don’t want it. The overwhelming consensus of public opinion in the Western world is that a war with Syria would be a bad idea. This now gives President Barack Obama some flexibility to back away from his red line, save political face, and do what’s necessary to prevent further violence in Syria.

But before spelling out ways we can help bring peace to Syria, it’s worth first identifying some problematic trends in America’s tack towards war. This is not unique to President Obama and was visible in past presidents’ penchant for war. There is a precedent here.

First, the idea that America can be “precise” and “limited” and “strategic” while attacking another country is completely misplaced. It inevitably leads to further or escalated violence. It always has. We wanted to be brief, precise and strategic in Iraq by bombing Baghdad, thinking “shock and awe” would intimidate the country and its recalcitrant leader into submission. This is not dissimilar to how we are now thinking that a “punitive” strike on Syria would send a stern message that President Bashar al-Assad, one to which he would be responsive.

Never mind the fact that al-Assad has made it clear that he’s not operating from a rational place, and would never respond rationally to punitive measures-- there is no way that a strike on Damascus would last only three days, as the Pentagon has predicted. The responsibility for the ensuing chaos-- from scores of civilians dead to increased likelihood of chemical weapons use-- would fall on the United States. We would be embroiled in an unraveling that would beckon more missiles, more troops, and more air and sea support. Observe every major U.S. intervention over the last 15 years. This is exactly what happened, despite the rhetoric of precise, limited, strategic and brief action.

Second, the idea in Washington that an attack, strike, or punitive action, is not an “invasion,” is an absolute fallacy. This is a relatively new definition promulgated by Washington’s defense community, and the think tanks that support it. It’s a convenient semantic reframing so that America is not perceived as the “evil Western invader”-- or part of some, to quote President Bush, "crusade"-- but rather seen as a short-lived intervener, a savior who will exercise discretion while quickly getting in and getting out.

The problem with this attempt at a reframe is that the rest of the world-- especially those being bombed by America-- doesn’t consider it anything less than an invasion, whether by air, sea or land. Boots on the ground is not the only kind of invasion. There are air invasions, with air raids (see Iraq) or drone strikes (see Yemen or Pakistan or Somalia). There are sea invasions, with Tomahawk missiles launched from ship (see Libya and the same plan for Syria). And there are ground invasions, with massive troops on the ground (see Afghanistan).

Third, the idea that we must act in haste, and bomb quickly without Congressional approval or authorization, is a dangerous undermining of the checks and balances instituted by our founding fathers. Most presidents, when planning for war, impress upon the American people the urgency of now, of invading immediately, because we don’t have time for Congressional oversight. Syria is an excellent example of this. With some 100,000 dead over nearly a two year time span we’ve had plenty of time for talk between the executive and legislative branches. The estimated 355 dead from the alleged chemical weapons attack, while absolutely deplorable, shouldn’t have created a new urgency that wasn’t already there. We should have been talking about preventing mass atrocities years ago, not after the house of Syria was nearly burnt down.

So what to do now? Invasion is the wrong course because it merely inflames the violence further, both within Syria and without. We must exhaust the following paths first before seeking a military course of action. Convene all the stakeholders who have a say with Syria’s al-Assad and who can put pressure on the president. That means more than just Russia, our go-to on the Geneva II peace talks. That means everyone from Iran, Lebanon, and Hezbollah, to the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. These are the entities that have entry into the Syrian president’s inner circle. If we truly want al-Assad to act differently, we have to talk to those who have sway.

Then, if the diplomatic track fails to work, and after it has solidly been exhausted, we must engage the U.N. Security Council in a conversation about the International Criminal Court and an indictment of Assad for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. This path is consistent with America’s support of international law and the ethical frameworks undergirding the Geneva Conventions.

Throughout this process, we must continue work with the United Nations to not only ensure weapons inspections are executed properly over the coming weeks, and weapons flows and arms trafficking are stopped or slowed, but that we ramp up humanitarian aid for the millions of refugees inside Syria and in neighboring countries. This is essential if we care about saving Syrians.

This is the path we must pursue and the only way forward. It is time for something preventive before we press play on the punitive.

The CPC has been very lax about membership. Many of the members aren't actual progressives and have other priorities that come first. The overwhelming majority of CPC members, however, remained unconvinced and, if the vote for today, would vote NO. I spoke with several members, in confidence, who participated in the White House call Wednesday and the impression I got was that the call only raised more questions in the minds of progressives about the wisdom of this move. "They didn't change any minds," said one congressman, at least not of anyone willing to speak up on it on that call or our subsequent caucus-only calls." As Ryan Grimm put it at HuffPo yesterday, "This sucker could go down. And unlike the Wall Street bailout, there is unlikely to be a do-over." Congressional calls from constituents are running at least 9:1 against the war. The NY Times also indicates that if Obama can't bring the progressives over to his way of thinking, the resolution will fail in the House.

Congressional Democrats, torn over involving the United States in another unpredictable Middle East war, are emerging as a major barrier to President Obama’s plan to strike Syria.

Many of the president’s core supporters, especially African-Americans and members of the Democratic Party’s liberal wing who voted repeatedly against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are expressing the deepest reservations. With rank-and-file House Republicans showing little inclination to back Mr. Obama on an issue on which he has staked his political credibility, scores of Democratic votes will be needed if a resolution authorizing force against Syria is to pass the House.

Democrats say they are being confronted with a difficult choice: Go against the wishes of a president who is popular and well respected in their caucus, or defy voters back home who are overwhelmingly opposed to another United States military intervention overseas.

In the first sign of how splits within the party will loom large over the Syria debate, two Democrats voted no and a third voted present on Wednesday when a divided Senate committee approved a use-of-force resolution with senators from both parties crossing over.

“There are two major considerations to take into account,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries, a freshman from New York and member of the Black Caucus. “The prestige of an administration we strongly support versus an open-ended conflict in the Middle East that risks the lives of the people we represent if war were to break out. Not to mention the diversion of resources back into our communities that sorely need it.”

...The divisions within the party do not break down neatly along the usual lines that have separated the antiwar Democrats from the hawks.

Those who are deeply conflicted about how to proceed include liberals who are ordinarily suspicious of using military force but feel compelled to punish President Bashar al-Assad of Syria over accusations that his forces staged a chemical attack against civilians. There are also members who represent primarily minority and urban districts where the president’s word carries a lot of weight but voters are preoccupied with how spending cuts are hurting public assistance and threatening Social Security and Medicare.

And there are Democrats who are weighing an appeal from a president they admire-- who happens to have strong antiwar credentials himself-- whose reputation could suffer greatly here and abroad if Congress denies him its blessing.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, who represents a district that includes parts of Baltimore and has not decided how he stands on attacking Syria, said the pressure from his constituents to oppose the president’s plan is unmistakable. When he visited a grocery store on Wednesday, he said, almost a dozen people told him they thought intervening in Syria was a bad idea. None of them expressed support.

“If you’ve got 95 percent of them saying one thing, it becomes far more difficult to go against them,” he said, adding that the president needed to make a more forceful and convincing case to the public if he wanted Congressional consent for an attack. “As a good friend of his and someone who supports him, I think he’s got to help the Congress help him.”

For many Democrats who voted against the Iraq war authorization in 2002, that experience weighs heavily today. Though they say the parallels often cited by the president’s opponents are exaggerated-- this time, for example, Congress would set strict time limits on the duration of the military engagement-- the outcome of another conflict that could become intractable and prolonged is impossible to predict.

“The administration can tell us all they want that this will be discreet, targeted and limited to military facilities,” Mr. McGovern said. “Sometimes military operations have a strange way of getting out of hand.”

Other Democrats expressed concerns about another unknown variable: what the response from the Assad government would be.

“I think a lot of us believe there’s a legitimate use of military action where a state has used chemical weapons,” said Representative Peter Welch of Vermont. “On the other hand, there is a very compelling question about what the effect of that will be. Will it make the situation better or worse?”

Mr. Welch said the question became even more complicated for Democrats because war “runs against the grain” of where they have stood for the last decade.

For whatever reasons, the right-wing of the GOP is standing up very aggressively to their own Establishment on this. Boehner's support is collapsing in the House and McConnell is afraid to even take a stand. This morning, his right-wing opponent, Matt Bevin, put this video out:



War is never surgical, always blunt and unpredictable. One thing leads to another and it's soon nothing like what anyone expected. I can't see Blue America supporting anyone's campaign who votes for war; it's too basic. And Kerry is lying his ass off, a horrible idea-- even if it's for something he believes in. Friends of mine who were in the confidential meetings tell me Kerry had absolutely nothing worthwhile whatsoever-- not a shred of credible evidence-- that linked Assad to the chemical attack-- just the same crap they're pumping out as propaganda on the mass media.

Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.

At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.

"And the opposition is getting stronger by the day," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.

While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.

Kerry's remarks represented a change in tone by the Obama administration, which for more than two years has been wary of sending U.S. arms to the rebels, citing fears they could fall into radical Islamists' hands.

As recently as late July, at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, David Shedd, estimated that there were at least 1,200 different Syrian rebel groups and that Islamic extremists, notably the Nusra Front, were well-placed to expand their influence.

"Left unchecked, I'm very concerned that the most radical elements will take over larger segments" of the opposition groups, Shedd said. He added that the conflict could drag on anywhere "from many, many months to multiple years" and that a prolonged stalemate could leave open parts of Syria to potential control by radical fighters.

U.S. and allied intelligence sources said that such assessments have not changed.

A spokeswoman at the State Department said Kerry's remarks reflect the department's position, adding that the opposition had "taken steps over the past months to coalesce, including electing leaders."

Experts agree that the Nusra Front, an offshoot of the group al Qaeda in Iraq, is among the most effective forces in Syria.

In a second hearing on Wednesday, Kerry was challenged by Representative Michael McCaul, Texas Republican.

"Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefings all the time," McCaul said. "And every time I get briefed on this it gets worse and worse, because the majority now of these rebel forces - and I say majority now-- are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world."

Kerry replied: "I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists ... Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.

"There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that," Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.

Kerry cited an article by Elizabeth O'Bagy, an analyst with the Institute for the Study of War think tank, in which she wrote that Islamic extremist factions are not "spearheading the fight against the Syrian government," but rather that the struggle is being led by "moderate opposition forces."

Several leading lawmakers, including Senator John McCain, Arizona Republican, also have said there is a viable moderate opposition in Syria that Washington should support.

Was that the moderate rebel McCain met with who ate some Syrian soldier's heart and liver on live TV? That moderate? He's a well-known, respectable rebel from Homs. McCain! Why does anyone care what he says about anything? Has he ever been right... ever? A lot of freshmen Democrats are going to lose their seats next year because they do pay attention to McCain-- and, worse, to Steve Israel-- and don't have the good sense to oppose a war that their own constituents are overwhelmingly against. And that is a fate they will deserve. There are no good guys to back in this civil war.