Syria Letter to Senator Bill Nelson

Kevin Wayne

(Contact Information Withheld)

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Senate Office Building

United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

 

RE: Actions regarding Syria

Mr. Nelson,

I appreciate your response to my expression of disdain toward military action in Syria at this time.

You responded:

“Dear Mr. Wayne:

   

     Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the situation in Syria.

 

     I think everyone can agree that the use of chemical weapons there is cause for moral outrage.

 

     Some argue against a U.S. response. But I agree with President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and many of the GOP leaders, such as Senators McCain and Graham, that it’s in our nation’s best interest to hold accountable a dictator who uses weapons of mass destruction and slaughters innocents.

 

     We also believe we should limit our nation’s direct military involvement.

 

     I very much appreciated hearing from you on this important issue. Varied perspectives help me to be a better public servant. Thank you.

 

                                   Sincerely,

                                   Bill Nelson

 

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians.  If you’d like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm”

 

Senator, I must insist that my expression of disdain not be discounted so easily without further explanation from you in these regards.  I must insist upon comprehending your reasoning with some sort of detailed rationale to your views.  From my point of view, it appears irrational to invoke military action against Syria at this time.  I am asking for some open discourse in this matter due to the important nature of making a decision to kill other people.  Let neither of us “sugar coat” this discourse because you are making a conscious decision to kill people and there will be innocent casualties in the action you are supporting.

With the ugliness of my opening statement being made, I would like to now enlighten you on my point of view.

Firstly: I do agree that the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and you have made the case that it is a “moral outrage” we conclusively agree to that.  However, their alleged actions are NOT a violation of international law and additionally do not threaten our direct security at this time.  Please permit me to elaborate as that is quite a claim to make (and I stand by it).

Syria has in fact signed the Geneva Articles and additionally the Biological Convention.  However, they have not signed the (CWC) Chemical Weapons Convention.  Why is this important to the situation? It is important to make note of these signatories due to the fact that Syria is NOT involved in a “WAR”.  They are currently acting most similar to martial law to quell citizen unrest.  Even if we were to nickname the act “civil war”, it is quite different from their legal obligations. To clarify even further: If Syria were to use chemical weapons against another nation in an act of aggression or defense they would surely be in violation of the Geneva Articles and would be fully accountable to other nations acting militarily against them.  (Because they DID sign into Geneva).  However, it is clearly not the case in this situation due to the fact that they did not sign the (CWC).  Please review: http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/apmcbw_5.pdf?_=1328039154&_=1328039154 and http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/convention-prohibition-development-production-stockpiling-and-use-chemical-weapons-and-their-destruction-cwc/

As abhorrent as the alleged actions are, we have other solutions to this situation.  For instance: Our biggest and most important action we can take, as a nation built upon laws, is to force Syria to NOW sign onto the Chemical Weapons Convention.  The United States’ involvement in this situation should be first and foremost to convene with all other countries to ask, if not demand, that ALL trade with Syria be suspended and that their monetary notes be worthless until Syria signs onto the Chemical Weapons Convention effective immediately.

Not only is my suggestion important, it is necessary.  Additionally, it was the first solution which came to my mind and may not be the best solution.  However, I am proud that the first thing I thought of was a peaceful means, unlike your punitive mindset in this.  It is further a peaceful slap in the face which has the possibility of gaining the support of the Russian and Chinese leadership.  It additionally puts Syria in a position preventing any further use of chemical weapons without more significant action against them.

Secondly: I opine publically that your statement “We also believe we should limit our nation’s direct military involvement” is unfounded and your actions speak differently than your words.  If you truly believed in limiting military action you would actually not support military action when other means of solutions were presently available.  Your insinuation paraphrases that there can be no peaceful solution to any problem and that insinuation and belief is paramount to perpetual war.  It is further suspicious that according to this source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120929/DEFREG02/309290002/Top-U-S-Firms-Target-Congressional-Donations you received $60,500 in campaign contributions from defense sector contractors and simultaneously cannot possibly fathom a peaceful solution in Syria.

Thirdly: How is it in our best interest to hold the dictator accountable for this alleged act of inhumane behavior?  His true threat to our democracy is the dangling of the carrot of war in front of the faces of United States government official such as you.  His true threat to our democracy and way of life is that we are on the verge of acting like global conquerors and forcing a “régime” change in another sovereign nation’s territory.  We should be clear and stop saying “régime” and call it for what it is: a government.  When we use the word government is doesn’t sound so “evil” or “negative”.  I ask candidly: Are we using the word “régime” because we are attempting to add a negative connotative undertone to the government of Syria?

Fourthly:  I want to address the angle from which you are being viewed by intelligent individuals not influenced so drastically by daily talking points.  While we respect leadership and the opinions of experienced people, the generations below us are becoming significantly more sociologically self-aware.  That inarguable truth is important to the insinuative claims about our national standing in the global arena of respect.  You have clearly, in your letter, proclaimed agreement with the administration’s and Mr. Kerry’s point of view.  Part of that claim has been publically announced to be based upon how we fear we will appear to Iran and that our statements (“threats”) of action against them must be taken seriously.  In other words: We need to prove that we “mean it” when we threaten action.  This proclamation was clearly stated and reiterated by Mr. Kerry and the GOP leaders supporting military action.

From a sociological perspective it is the equivalent of punching your daughter in the face for not doing her homework to prove to your son that he better bring the car home on time like you said.  While I completely understand that chemical weapons are no significant comparison to doing homework, the psychological effect and results are the same.  The son and daughter would both lose respect for the parent and hate them the same as Syrian, Iranian, and other Middle Eastern countries will gain hatred for the United States.  Punitive actions are not the best solutions to bad behavior.  If you believe they are, then you are too old and out of touch with modern behavioral science to remain in office.

Finally and not entirely:  The arguments for military actions are so unconvincing that it is incomprehensible to imagine anybody with critical thinking skills to accept the “because we say so” approach to this matter.  While I completely accept that the morality of the issue should be enough to provoke action, I disagree that the only action is military action.  Additionally, the moral argument is ONLY viable when we are viewed as a moral icon.  The United States is far from being viewed in that regard upon the world stage and we are currently violating the Geneva Convention by holding and torturing individuals in Guantanamo.  The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment concluded that we were (and are) torturing prisoners.

Additionally, several news outlets have provided evidence that we, during the Reagan administration, have not only ignored the use of chemical weapons but also provided the means.  This topic is easily searchable and you can research evidence at: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/reagans-wmd-connection-saddam-hussein/ and also by viewing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HvuUSRhpXE There is currently no international (or even national in our case) precedent for punitive actions in the regards to the use of chemical weapons in modern warfare.  Therefore I ask: Why do we want to set the precedent that if you kill your people with chemicals we will come and kill more of your people with depleted uranium tipped barrages?  That makes no damn sense!

Conclusively the questions I ask are:

1. Are we using the word “régime” because we are attempting to add a negative connotative undertone to the government of Syria?
2. Why do we want to set the precedent that if you kill your people with chemicals we will come and kill more of your people with depleted uranium tipped barrages?
3. Why are we not attempting peaceful solutions first, foremost, and with greater priority?
4. Do you honestly feel that the world will be a better place if we chose military action over peaceful resolutions?
5. Do you really believe that Syria is a threat to the United States at this time (today)?
6. Mr. Kerry states that we are “Vetting” some of the militants fighting in Syria to support: Do you sir, remember when we vetted the Mujahideen (mujahedeen) and provided to them support to fight against the Russians covertly?  Do you sir; remember how well that turned out?  Do you even know who Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is and what his particular trade was?  Can you explain how our “vetting” process will be different this time with comprehensive explanations?

I am truly jealous of your opportunity to access the vast resources at your disposal to answer the questions above.  I look forward to your comprehensive explanations to the questions I have asked.  I know you must have thought of these things which I have mentioned herein and researched them prior to agreeing to support military actions.

Respectfully,

 

Kevin P Wayne