Smoke billows from the Iraqi planning ministry in Baghdad after it was hit with a missile during the start of the Iraq W
(Image by (Olivier Coret / Corbis)) Details DMCA
Fifty-one mid-level U.S. diplomats have written a dissent cable to Secretary of State
John Kerry urging the Obama administration to conduct military
strikes against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stop its
"persistent violations of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil
war."
The mid-level diplomats, who have been involved in the U.S.
policy toward Syria
over the past five years, believe that "a
judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, would undergird and drive a more
focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process" and would put pressure on
the Assad government to negotiate with the moderate opposition.
The officers wrote that the Syrian government's barrel bombing
of civilians is
the "root cause of the instability that continues to grip Syria and the broader
region...The
moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after
five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable. The status quo in Syria
will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian,
diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges."
The
dissent cable concludes, "It is time that the United States, guided by our
strategic interests and moral convictions, lead a global effort to put an end to
this conflict once and for all."
I
can understand their frustration, but from a different point of
view.
I served 16 years as a U.S. diplomat. But, 13 years
ago in late February 2003 I wrote a dissent cable to Secretary of State Colin
Powell expressing my strong concerns about the Bush administration's hot
rhetoric about the need for regime change in Iraq and predicted the chaos that a
U.S.invasion and occupation would have.
My dissent had no effect on the Bush administration and three
weeks later on the eve of the beginning of the war on Iraq, I sent Colin Powell
another cable -- this time with my resignation.
I was OPPOSING the use of military force for regime change that was couched in the terminology of allegations of weapons of mass destruction. These 51 US diplomats are lobbying FOR military action, essentially for regime change couched in the words of "bring Assad to the negotiating table."
None of us condone the Assad's government dropping horrific
barrel bombs on anyone, but after seeing the chaos of Iraq and Libya after their
leaders were removed by U.S. military action, I fail to understand how removing
Assad by US military force will have any other result than increasing chaos and
violence in Syria and giving an opening for groups to gain control that may
perpetrate even worse violence on the people of Syria.
Although I don't know the names or history of the diplomats
who signed the dissent cable, as mid-level officers they probably worked in the
State Department 10-15 years and have known nothing but US wars since 2001 -- 15
years of war.
War is the U.S. government norm and their viewpoints seem to
be coming from that perspective, despite some resounding non-violent successes
to address political disagreements in Cuba and Iran.
The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were the matches that
lit the fires in Libya and Syria, brought thousands of international mercenary
fighters to the region and precipitated the terrible attacks in Paris, Brussels,
San Bernadino and possibly Orlando.
Sadly and dangerously, the diplomats who signed this letter either do not recognize or do not care that attempting to bomb Assad for regime
change may satisfy Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, our "allies" in blood, but
would create an even stronger anti-American blaze in the region and around the
world that could be uncontrollable.
3
2
2
