Dear President Obama,
On behalf of billions of relieved peace loving citizens, I would like to thank you for taking a bloody nose. Your decision to step back from strikes on Syria is the right one for world peace - it may even actually define your Presidency for centuries to come. It may seem that you are taking a bloody nose here, but hey - your decision would prevent a million more bloody noses in and around the Middle East.
First, my view is that you may not win the vote to strike Syria within the Congress. Your own people's representatives are saying they will disagree with you. 146 folks of your own party are undecided while 129 Republicans are going to vote against the strike. In the United States, only 25 percent of those surveyed in late August in a HuffPost/YouGov poll expressed support for a military strike in reaction to the lethal chemical weapons attack blamed widely on the regime of Syrian president Bashar Assad. When did the Democratic party ever be in this position in recent memory ? The war hawks are on the other side, Mr President (for those readers that like statistics, please see the link below from CNN).
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html
Second, your closest allies are telling the Americans not to commit hara-kiri. Mr Cameron found out a few weeks ago from the British public that the English do not favor British troops in syria. In France, where President Francois Hollande has pledged to join the United States in taking on Syria, public support for military intervention has been running at only 45 percent (according to a recent CSA survey for Atlantico). Another poll conducted by Ifop for the newspaper Le Figaro found only 41 percent approved of France joining in a military response. In Germany, public opinion has been running 58 percent against striking Syria, according to public television. And in Italy a recent poll by the IPR Institute found that 52 percent of the public opposed an attack on Syria even absent Italian involvement. About 57 percent of Italians opposed allowing Italian military bases to be used in assisting foreign strikes engaged in strikes. Please listen to world opinion Mr. President - I think you are ...or at least your recent statements indicate you are trying to.
Third, there are more than 10 different players with a history in this conflict - Please ask yourself - Mr President - why are they not getting involved directly ? Why would the US and the world benefit from the Americans trying to play global police. A sampler below of the players involved:-
- The Russians export more than 4 billion worth of arms and weaponry to the Syrians every year and Syria provides them with their last big outpost near the Mediterranean. They would not want any conflict altering this strategic position.
- The Israelis have a long history with Syria, or rightly said - against Syria. They have fought three wars - in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Then in 1982 the Israelis routed the Syrians assisting the PLO in Lebanon and as recent as January 2013, Syrians positions were attacked by the Israelis. The Israelis share a border with the Syrians and can very well defend themselves if attacked. I am not sure the Americans need to act here. American intervention in the syrian war could also potentially endanger the chance of the Israeli Palestinian peace process - something you have very high on your Presidential agenda in your 2nd term.
- The Jordanians. Who can forget Black September between 1970 and 1971. Mr President - America at that point in time sent your forces to protect King Hussein and his territory. However the presence of Russian (at that point USSR) troops prevent your country's forces from taking offensive positions. I hope you agree that a strike against Syria could bring the Russians into direct conflict with the US and potentially explode into a wider Middle East war.
- The Lebanese. Less said the better. They have had a history of Syrian intervention in the running of their country and also the background of Mr Hariri being assasinated (allegedly) by the Syrians. They have some scores to settle. Have we ever asked why they haven't intervened yet ?
- The Iranians. Mr President - you must appreciate that the new Iranian President - Mr. Rowhani is trying to forge better ties with the West. While Iranians have historically been the supporters of the Alawite (A shiite section of Islam) Syrian first family, I am sure they would not want NATO forces in Syria and in Iraq. Your involvement would create friction with the Persians; something you don't want to overlook when you are trying to get them to disarm their atomic arsenal.
- The Iraqis. The historic power struggle within the Baa'th party - the Iraqi faction vs. the Syrian faction has kept the Iraqis at a distance vs. Syria. Then there is also the issue of the Kurds that needs to be resolved. American intervention would certainly complicate the relationship even further and make life even worse for the Kurds - on the Syrian and Iraqi sides of the war.
- The Saudis, Qataris, Egyptians and the Emiratis - The historic power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shias is bound to come to the surface and tilt the power in the hands of the Sunnis if the Assad government is toppled. Mr President, you would not want to plant more explosives into a region with a million Arab Springs in their oil rich deserts - or would you ?
And finally Mr. President - even your own party members are questioning the quality of the evidence of the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. There is very little doubt that a chemical attack (or multiple attacks) have been carried out on civilians on the street. But the world awaits and rightly so - from the American intelligence agencies - the high quality of evidence linking the Assad regime to the use of these chemical weapons.
Your decision to take a bloody nose and stand down from your position for calling for a strike - and instead taking the chemical stockpile from the Syrians into safe custody, is the right one. I hope you can translate this into more peaceful action and join the rest of the globe in finding a diplomatic solution to the impasse. Thank you.
On behalf of billions of relieved peace loving citizens, I would like to thank you for taking a bloody nose. Your decision to step back from strikes on Syria is the right one for world peace - it may even actually define your Presidency for centuries to come. It may seem that you are taking a bloody nose here, but hey - your decision would prevent a million more bloody noses in and around the Middle East.
First, my view is that you may not win the vote to strike Syria within the Congress. Your own people's representatives are saying they will disagree with you. 146 folks of your own party are undecided while 129 Republicans are going to vote against the strike. In the United States, only 25 percent of those surveyed in late August in a HuffPost/YouGov poll expressed support for a military strike in reaction to the lethal chemical weapons attack blamed widely on the regime of Syrian president Bashar Assad. When did the Democratic party ever be in this position in recent memory ? The war hawks are on the other side, Mr President (for those readers that like statistics, please see the link below from CNN).
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/09/politics/syria-congress-vote-count/house.html
Second, your closest allies are telling the Americans not to commit hara-kiri. Mr Cameron found out a few weeks ago from the British public that the English do not favor British troops in syria. In France, where President Francois Hollande has pledged to join the United States in taking on Syria, public support for military intervention has been running at only 45 percent (according to a recent CSA survey for Atlantico). Another poll conducted by Ifop for the newspaper Le Figaro found only 41 percent approved of France joining in a military response. In Germany, public opinion has been running 58 percent against striking Syria, according to public television. And in Italy a recent poll by the IPR Institute found that 52 percent of the public opposed an attack on Syria even absent Italian involvement. About 57 percent of Italians opposed allowing Italian military bases to be used in assisting foreign strikes engaged in strikes. Please listen to world opinion Mr. President - I think you are ...or at least your recent statements indicate you are trying to.
Third, there are more than 10 different players with a history in this conflict - Please ask yourself - Mr President - why are they not getting involved directly ? Why would the US and the world benefit from the Americans trying to play global police. A sampler below of the players involved:-
- The Russians export more than 4 billion worth of arms and weaponry to the Syrians every year and Syria provides them with their last big outpost near the Mediterranean. They would not want any conflict altering this strategic position.
- The Israelis have a long history with Syria, or rightly said - against Syria. They have fought three wars - in 1948, 1967 and 1973. Then in 1982 the Israelis routed the Syrians assisting the PLO in Lebanon and as recent as January 2013, Syrians positions were attacked by the Israelis. The Israelis share a border with the Syrians and can very well defend themselves if attacked. I am not sure the Americans need to act here. American intervention in the syrian war could also potentially endanger the chance of the Israeli Palestinian peace process - something you have very high on your Presidential agenda in your 2nd term.
- The Jordanians. Who can forget Black September between 1970 and 1971. Mr President - America at that point in time sent your forces to protect King Hussein and his territory. However the presence of Russian (at that point USSR) troops prevent your country's forces from taking offensive positions. I hope you agree that a strike against Syria could bring the Russians into direct conflict with the US and potentially explode into a wider Middle East war.
- The Lebanese. Less said the better. They have had a history of Syrian intervention in the running of their country and also the background of Mr Hariri being assasinated (allegedly) by the Syrians. They have some scores to settle. Have we ever asked why they haven't intervened yet ?
- The Iranians. Mr President - you must appreciate that the new Iranian President - Mr. Rowhani is trying to forge better ties with the West. While Iranians have historically been the supporters of the Alawite (A shiite section of Islam) Syrian first family, I am sure they would not want NATO forces in Syria and in Iraq. Your involvement would create friction with the Persians; something you don't want to overlook when you are trying to get them to disarm their atomic arsenal.
- The Iraqis. The historic power struggle within the Baa'th party - the Iraqi faction vs. the Syrian faction has kept the Iraqis at a distance vs. Syria. Then there is also the issue of the Kurds that needs to be resolved. American intervention would certainly complicate the relationship even further and make life even worse for the Kurds - on the Syrian and Iraqi sides of the war.
- The Saudis, Qataris, Egyptians and the Emiratis - The historic power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shias is bound to come to the surface and tilt the power in the hands of the Sunnis if the Assad government is toppled. Mr President, you would not want to plant more explosives into a region with a million Arab Springs in their oil rich deserts - or would you ?
And finally Mr. President - even your own party members are questioning the quality of the evidence of the chemical attacks by the Assad regime. There is very little doubt that a chemical attack (or multiple attacks) have been carried out on civilians on the street. But the world awaits and rightly so - from the American intelligence agencies - the high quality of evidence linking the Assad regime to the use of these chemical weapons.
Your decision to take a bloody nose and stand down from your position for calling for a strike - and instead taking the chemical stockpile from the Syrians into safe custody, is the right one. I hope you can translate this into more peaceful action and join the rest of the globe in finding a diplomatic solution to the impasse. Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment