Home for Critical Thinking


Congress must not agree to a military strike against Syria

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 09-03-2013 | in Political, Government, Democracy, Human Relations, Critical Thinking, Freedom,

President Barack Obama decided the United States must make a military strike against Syria, because President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people. The conclusion displays poor reasoning about a complex international problem. Congress must vote against Obama misusing America’s Armed Forces for an international problem that is more properly within the domain of the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction,” common called Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), is an arms control agreement between the parties that ratified it. It outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. It set schedules for nations with chemical weapons to destroy them. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) administers the agreement.

President Obama said, “This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”

Obama managed to fit many appeals to emotion in his statement and few of reason. He makes the slippery-slope type argument–if we allow this event without a reaction then a chain of evils will follow. Previous presidents used this argument to justify the Vietnam War, the War on drugs, and the invasion of Iraq. I agree that some enforcement authority must act against nations that stockpile and use chemical weapons. However, international organizations like the United Nations and OPCW should exercise that authority and not the President of the United States by an act of war.

Obama also said, “Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorist who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?”

Obama's statement about the chemical weapons crisis shows why he and the United States lack credibility in this crisis. Dishonestly, he refers to Israel as a nation threatened by the misuse of chemical weapons as if it were among the nations supporting the prohibition against chemical weapons. However, only 189 of 196 nations were party to the CWC on June 2013. Israel was not one of them. Israel and Myanmar are two nations that signed the agreement in 1993, but never ratified the convention. They remain outside the convention with Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria. The United States also signed the agreement in 1993 and ratified the convention in 1997. Therefore, President Obama misleads Americans when he fails to list all nations that provide themselves the alternative of using chemical weapons.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon more honestly sets out the status of nations in the chemical weapon’s crisis. Recently, he appealed to Israel, Syria and all nations outside the CWC to ratify their membership. Until they do, all of them preserve the equally loathsome alternative to create, store and use chemical weapons against their citizens or against people of other nations. Unlike President Obama, the Secretary-General held all nations accountability that refuse to support the international prohibitions of chemical weapons. Even some nations in the CWC have failed to meet their schedule to destroy all chemical weapons.

Obama’s statement suggests the world is the domain of the United States of America and the U.S. President is its emperor with authority and duty to hold other nations accountable for violating international rules. He said, “Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.” Americans and Congress should pay close attention to those remarks that suggests an imperial presidency free of restrains of Congress or the people.

I read the Constitution many times. I have not found the place in Article II that gives the president authority as Commander in chief of American Armed Forces authority to attack another nation without the consent of Congress. It does not name the President the Commander of the International Police Force.

The fast developing imperial presidency the past forty years threatens freedom and the American republic more than foreign forces do. Commonsense should warn any free people the threat to freedom of concentrating power in the presidency during crisis or war. This is a critical period for American freedom. The president already has extraordinary powers bestowed on the Executive Branch by a panicked Congress after the 9/11 attacks on the homeland. Now, Obama asks Congress to grant him the authority to attack another nation based only on its loathsome domestic conduct and its violation of an international rule that does not directly threaten the United States. A “yes” vote by Congress will complete the imperial presidency with monarchical war-making powers.

This approval by Congress would be an abandonment of duty for no good reason given Obama's admission, “And the American people have the good sense to know we cannot resolve the underlying conflict in Syria with our military. In that part of the world, there are ancient sectarian differences, and the hopes of the Arab Spring have unleashed forces of change that are going to take many years to resolve. And that's why we’re not contemplating putting our troops in the middle of someone else’s war.”

Paradoxically, Obama who plans a military strike against Syria for breaking an international rule fails to cite the international law that authorizes this unilateral action by the United States or by any nation. He appears to make the argument that power is its own authority for action. Congress must dispute this assertion by telling President Obama, “No, we do not agree to a military strike against Syria.”

Special Foreign alliances threaten the American Republic

Written By Kenneth Brooks on 09-08-2012 | in Political, Human Relations, Critical Thinking, Economics,

I read President Obama's Democrat National Convention speech accepting the Democrat Party's nomination for president. I was doing fine with the speech until this part.

"Around the world, we've strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We've reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers. From Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings -- men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews.

But for all the progress that we've made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted.  Europe's crisis must be contained. Our commitment to Israel's security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace.

Why have we reasserted our power across the Pacific to stand up to China on behalf of American workers, but committed American resources to support the European Union's economic interests? Until the current economic crisis, the European Union strived to insert its monetary unit, the Euro, as the international currency in place of the U.S. dollar. This change would have degraded America's economy status, the value of the dollar and increased costs to American consumers.

So why is China the bad nation and Europe Union in need of protection? Like China, the European Union consists of a much larger population than the United States. Much of the chaos in Africa, Middle East, and Asia stem from centuries of European invasions and colonization. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and even the United States forced treaties on China that reduced much of the area to a colonial status. European colonizers Britain and Portugal only recently returned control of Hong Kong and Macau to the Republic of China in 1997 and 1999.

Colonization destroys the culture and natural socioeconomic and sociopolitical balance of power of an area. Thereafter, areas often experience periods of chaos and autocratic rule as people shift from colonialism to self-rule. Europeans were impartial in their destruction of societies and economies including those of European people and nations.

Historians place European WWI casualties in the range of 37 million- 16 million deaths and 20 million wounded. They place WWII world casualties about 40 million people. Nevertheless, after those wars European nations reasserted authority over colonized African and Asian areas often with the support of the USA. Seven decades later, American leaders try to foist a new form of colonialism on African and Asian people that struggle, often violently, to reestablish natural sociopolitical and socioeconomic institutions free of European and American values. We try this irrational upholding of past European imperialism at the potential destruction of our constitutional republic.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion." President Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney guarantee the defense of Israel as if it is the 51st state of the American Republic.

I can understand the commitment to stand by a friend in time of need. Nevertheless, no responsible family leaders give greater prominence for the security and economic welfare of a friend over the welfare of family. The 99 percent of law-abiding people living in low income areas of cities beset by crime would welcome Obama and Romney's assurance of safe neighborhoods for their families. Nevertheless, I did not read concern for them in Obama or Romney speeches.

Republican and Democrat national conventions are part of American cultural ritual for the selection of the national leader for the next four years. However, both political parties felt obliged to include concerns about the defense of Israel during this purely American sociopolitical ritual. All Americans should feel gravely concerned about the deterioration of our constitutional republican values that any foreign nation has this much influence over our government and both presidential candidates.

Rational American's should heed the founders' warnings about permanent foreign alliances.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils. Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences...constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard."

-George Washington's Farewell Address, September 17, 1796

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams.


<< month,year >>
SunMonTue WedThuFri Sat


RSS 2.0: Articles | Comments
ATOM 1.0: Articles | Comments