DON\'T CROSS THE RED LINE IN SYRIA
SAY NO TO UNILATERAL MILITARY ACTION BY U.S. IN SYRIA
Leaders around the world agree that the Syrian government has perpetrated war crimes by using chemical weapons against its own people. There is also international recognition that, after two years and tremendous casualties, the civil war in Syria has reached a point that requires a swift and responsible political resolution.
There remains a real opportunity for this crisis to be resolved at the bargaining table rather than on the battlefield. A coalition has already been forged between international partners through the Geneva I and II agreements.
President Obama has asked for Congressional approval to use unilateral military force against the Assad regime prior to the completion of these ongoing diplomatic efforts. While the humanitarian justification for action in Syria is clear, the military solution proposed by the White House has a grave chance of exacerbating the existing problems rather than solving them.
Tell the Commander-in-Chief, UNILATERAL MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA CROSSES THE RED LINE.
Consider these six realities:
1. Limited military action is not likely to achieve the objective of knocking out Assad's chemical weapons capabilities. An ineffective strike may actually embolden Assad and galvanize his supporters in Syria. Furthermore, there is not a single historical example of limited airstrikes alone significantly altering the behavior of a dictator.
2. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are inevitable. The resultant death toll of an unauthorized, unilateral military strike could rank as its own violation of human rights and national sovereignty,
3. Aiding Syrian rebel groups will benefit al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq that directly oppose U.S. interests and the safety of our citizens at home and abroad.
4. Retaliation against U.S. strikes could come from all sides and take on many unpredictable forms. Assad, aided by Hezbollah, is capable of escalating the war against his own people and threatening the safety of U.S personnel throughout the Middle East. In the event of such retaliation, how is the President prepared to react, and will we in fact be able to avoid being drawn into a large scale conflict?
5. Multi-lateral summits aimed at forging a political resolution are in danger of being undermined in the wake of military action. More bloodshed will only serve to complicate the diplomatic process and make it less likely that a political solution will be reached, potentially bolstering Assad's power and allowing the civil war to continue to rage.
6. We have thus far failed to build an international coalition or secure backing from the U.N. and several key allies. A unilateral attack by the United States before the diplomatic process is complete will not only be premature, it will radically compromise our credibility around the world.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, IF YOU DEFY INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS AND WAGE WAR ON SYRIA, YOU HAVE CROSSED THE RED LINE.
There remains a real opportunity for this crisis to be resolved at the bargaining table rather than on the battlefield. A coalition has already been forged between international partners through the Geneva I and II agreements.
President Obama has asked for Congressional approval to use unilateral military force against the Assad regime prior to the completion of these ongoing diplomatic efforts. While the humanitarian justification for action in Syria is clear, the military solution proposed by the White House has a grave chance of exacerbating the existing problems rather than solving them.
Tell the Commander-in-Chief, UNILATERAL MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA CROSSES THE RED LINE.
Consider these six realities:
1. Limited military action is not likely to achieve the objective of knocking out Assad's chemical weapons capabilities. An ineffective strike may actually embolden Assad and galvanize his supporters in Syria. Furthermore, there is not a single historical example of limited airstrikes alone significantly altering the behavior of a dictator.
2. Civilian casualties and collateral damage are inevitable. The resultant death toll of an unauthorized, unilateral military strike could rank as its own violation of human rights and national sovereignty,
3. Aiding Syrian rebel groups will benefit al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria and Iraq that directly oppose U.S. interests and the safety of our citizens at home and abroad.
4. Retaliation against U.S. strikes could come from all sides and take on many unpredictable forms. Assad, aided by Hezbollah, is capable of escalating the war against his own people and threatening the safety of U.S personnel throughout the Middle East. In the event of such retaliation, how is the President prepared to react, and will we in fact be able to avoid being drawn into a large scale conflict?
5. Multi-lateral summits aimed at forging a political resolution are in danger of being undermined in the wake of military action. More bloodshed will only serve to complicate the diplomatic process and make it less likely that a political solution will be reached, potentially bolstering Assad's power and allowing the civil war to continue to rage.
6. We have thus far failed to build an international coalition or secure backing from the U.N. and several key allies. A unilateral attack by the United States before the diplomatic process is complete will not only be premature, it will radically compromise our credibility around the world.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, IF YOU DEFY INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS AND WAGE WAR ON SYRIA, YOU HAVE CROSSED THE RED LINE.
View Comments