OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO (CA-18)That Anna Eshoo felt the latitude to go this far in the face of this administration should be taken as a serious repudiation of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, one that has advanced the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood at the expense of both freedom and religious tolerance. It is a development that we should welcome. Needless to say, she had evidence; as it would take a complete idiot not to recognize the parallels between Libya and Syria. Nobody having any compassion for the Syrian people would want to go that route again.
For Immediate Release
September 11, 2013 http://eshoo.house.gov Contact: Charles Stewart (202) 225-8104 firstname.lastname@example.org
ESHOO STATEMENT ON SYRIA
WASHINGTON, D.C.Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) released the following statement on the issue of Syria:
I welcome President Obamas announcement and commend him for pursuing the Russian diplomatic proposal to disarm and destroy Syrias arsenal of chemical weapons. This diplomatic path holds out hope for the world that the situation can be addressed in a way that has always been one of Americas great strengthsleading with integrity to avert war.
Our most solemn responsibility as Members of Congress is to use our best judgment to protect the national security of our nation. A decision to use military force therefore requires we be able to answer the following questions:
There is no question that striking Syria is an act of war. It would be preemptive, unilateral, and contrary to how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy for decades.
- Is this in the national security interests of the U.S.?
- Will this action make us safer?
- Will it make the Syrian people safer?
- Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the United States?
I am not naïve about the very real dangers our nation faces, but these dangers cannot be removed by military action alone. In fact, the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made this clear in his recent testimony to Congress:
Militarily, I can state that we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. Take note that I didnt say we can prevent.
What is more determinative is the power of our ideas, rather than the power of our military. There is a place for military action, but Syria is not that place.
When the U.S. strayed from its historical moorings, we learned painful and costly lessons that might alone does not get the job done. Instead of diplomacy, containment and coalitions, our military interventions, invasions and surges have left countries in turmoil and emboldened jihadists, making the world more dangerous. We must learn from the lessons of recent history, or we will repeat the failures.
I believe a preemptive and unilateral strike against Syria is wrong.
I believe it will make the world more dangerous, not safer.
I believe it will not reverse the tide on the ground in Syria.
I believe that using force for the sake of force is not in the interest of our national security and will be counterproductive.
I believe, as do thousands of my constituents, that going to war against Syriaregardless of how targeted or limited the strikeswill implicate the U.S. in a civil war, cause possible retaliations in the region destabilizing it even more, and add to the ill will against our country.
I will cast a no vote to the Presidents request for authorization to strike Syria should it be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives.
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
Not a bad list to use as a framework before initiating war (unprovoked attack).