On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives is expected to vote on whether or not to allow the Obama administration to arm and train the Free Syrian Army (FSA) which is fighting both the Islamic State (ISIS) and the tyrannical regime of Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad.
For more than two years President Obama hesitated in developing a strong policy to support the moderate fighters of Syria. Throughout that time only a handful of members of the House and Senate called for decisive action. Some members from both parties called repeatedly for action but their voices were ignored.
This inaction was due in part to the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria and a fear of aiding radicalized elements of the revolution. It was primarily due though to an unwillingness to risk the ire of an American people weary of wars and rumors of wars.
This inaction was due in part to the complexity of the situation on the ground in Syria and a fear of aiding radicalized elements of the revolution. It was primarily due though to an unwillingness to risk the ire of an American people weary of wars and rumors of wars.
This low-risk approach to foreign policy, although popular in town hall meetings, did not come without a price.
The humanitarian disaster that is the Syrian revolution against Assad has left more than 190,000 civilians dead, 6.5 million displaced with 3.5 million of these in refugee camps outside Syria. Today, much of Syria lies in ruins. Schools and hospitals are closed in many cities and clean water and power are luxuries.
In addition, the battle field of the Syrian war has become the safe haven and staging point for ISIS. ISIS in Iraq would never have gained the strength it now flexes through the murder of the innocent if it were not for its roots in Syria.
Despite this the revolution continues. Facing overwhelming odds, the moderate opposition that began the revolution with peaceful protests in Damascus continues to fight both Assad and ISIS with a vigor that comes not from radicalized hate but an unwavering commitment to freeing a nation held hostage by tyranny.
During the debate leading to tomorrow’s vote three key questions regarding these arms and funds should be asked. Their obvious answers, however, should not sway a Member to vote against the measure.
These questions are:
- Can the administration guarantee Congress or the American people that no weapons supplied to the FSA will ever end up in the hands of Islamic Jihadists?
- Can the administration guarantee that with the arming of this loose army of mostly civilian fighters defeat ISIS in Syria?
- Is the administration confident that all FSA fighters are fighting for western style democracy and if victorious will support a smooth transition to a stable and American leaning government?
The answers to these questions are of course, no.
There can be no absolute assurance given as to how every weapon will be used, of ultimate victory or of what that the motivations of all fighters are today or tomorrow.
There can be other guarantees however.
Members seeking guarantees can look to the assurance that without U.S. and allied support the FSA will gradually be defeated by the joint efforts of Assad and ISIS.
These Members can also be guaranteed that that with this defeat will come a strengthened foe committed to our destruction.
To the true isolationist, however, these words will garner only a mild response of, “It still isn’t our fight.”
If the genocide of Syrian people does not rise to the level of merely supplying weapons to a legitimate and proven opposition, and if the demonstrated threat to our national security does not lend itself to action, if these facts are not persuasive what could possibly move them?
There can be no absolute assurance given as to how every weapon will be used, of ultimate victory or of what that the motivations of all fighters are today or tomorrow.
There can be other guarantees however.
Members seeking guarantees can look to the assurance that without U.S. and allied support the FSA will gradually be defeated by the joint efforts of Assad and ISIS.
These Members can also be guaranteed that that with this defeat will come a strengthened foe committed to our destruction.
To the true isolationist, however, these words will garner only a mild response of, “It still isn’t our fight.”
If the genocide of Syrian people does not rise to the level of merely supplying weapons to a legitimate and proven opposition, and if the demonstrated threat to our national security does not lend itself to action, if these facts are not persuasive what could possibly move them?
The answer is simple - soaring gasoline prices. It is hard to imagine a scenario where the establishment of a radical Islamist Middle East Caliphate dedicated to destabilizing the entire region and the destruction of the United States would not result in a tremendous rise in oil prices.
Constituents may cheer when their isolationist Congressman says, “We should build roads here at home rather than fight someone else’s civil war in the Middle East,” but when that constituent is paying $7.99 a gallon to drive on those roads, the cheers become rallying cries against incumbents.
Few if any issues drive voters more angrily to the polls than skyrocketing gas prices.
Unfortunately by the time this impact is felt there would be no one left to fund, leaving us with the one thing more feared that rising gas prices - boots on the ground.
Today, there are boots on the ground. They are being worn by brave men and women fighting to their deaths to destroy ISIS. They are worn by the Free Syrian Army.
A vote against arming them so is ultimately a vote to arm ourselves tomorrow and fight a war that never needs to be waged.
Members should vote to arm the moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army. The motivation for this vote, be it in support of national security, a humanitarian imperative or the fear of constituent anger over soaring gas prices, does not matter. A 'Yes' vote should be cast.
The price of dogmatic isolationism can no longer be afforded.
Constituents may cheer when their isolationist Congressman says, “We should build roads here at home rather than fight someone else’s civil war in the Middle East,” but when that constituent is paying $7.99 a gallon to drive on those roads, the cheers become rallying cries against incumbents.
Few if any issues drive voters more angrily to the polls than skyrocketing gas prices.
Unfortunately by the time this impact is felt there would be no one left to fund, leaving us with the one thing more feared that rising gas prices - boots on the ground.
Today, there are boots on the ground. They are being worn by brave men and women fighting to their deaths to destroy ISIS. They are worn by the Free Syrian Army.
A vote against arming them so is ultimately a vote to arm ourselves tomorrow and fight a war that never needs to be waged.
Members should vote to arm the moderate elements of the Free Syrian Army. The motivation for this vote, be it in support of national security, a humanitarian imperative or the fear of constituent anger over soaring gas prices, does not matter. A 'Yes' vote should be cast.
The price of dogmatic isolationism can no longer be afforded.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.