NON à la guerre en Syrie! NO War with Syria!

A note on ambivalence: It’s ok to have feelings that go both ways on an issue and still believe strongly that one course of action is better than the other. There are valid reasons for attacking Assad. I mean, the dude’s a dictator that’s kidnapped, imprisoned, tortured, and killed tons of pro-democracy rebels and innocent civilians. And he’s set an ominous precedent with the use of particularly heinous and indiscriminate weapons known as bombs. (Yeah, sarin gas too.) But we feel, strongly, that foreign military intervention is more likely to increase human suffering than to decrease it. Our ambivalence means that the argument is more complex, and probably that we have a greater chance of being wrong. But it doesn’t make it any less important that we be vocal about what we believe. When we believe one position is ultimately better than another, silence is an abdication of our responsibility to raise our voices and better our world.


“Hands off Syria” isn’t the best slogan, but these protests are right on.

Here are our letters (you can do this too!) to our representatives in Congress, who will be voting on whether or not to authorize a military attack on Assad’s regime next week:

NO War in Syria!


The United States should go out of its way to help people around the world. We should devote a far greater portion of our resources to it. We should do so because as a wealthy country we have the ability, and those who can help others with limited negative effects for themselves have the obligation to do so. We should do so because our wealth and material abundance is in large part a result of the hard work of the people living in abject poverty who mine the cobalt for our orthopedic implants, stitch together our running shoes, and assemble the laptop I’m writing this on, and we haven’t given them nearly enough in return. And we should do it because a world with much less poverty and preventable disease and much more access to education and potable water is in our own interest in the long-term, as it leads to reductions in population pressures and violent extremism.

But we should NOT attack Syria. It doesn’t make any sense to claim that a military attack here is something we must do, on humanitarian grounds, when every single day of every single year we abdicate our responsibility to take much more humanitarian action for a much lower price. If the cost is something like the $4 billion spent by NATO forces in Libya, that same amount of money could provide insecticide-treated bednets to everyone in the world’s highest malaria risk areas. Given what we know about use and effectiveness rates, that would prevent some 2 billion malaria infections and 4 million deaths in the first five years. There is no way that we can do any equivalent good with Tomahawk missiles (~$900,000 or 160,000 bed nets each) in Syria, obviously. Additionally, military intervention in Syria is likely to kill humans, result in more anti-Americanism amongst at least some groups, and further weaken the international framework for conflict resolution. And then there are the potentially massive consequences and side effects that we can only guess at now (prolonged American involvement, a larger regional war, takeover of power by extremists, etc.).

So, I urge you vehemently to vote against an attack on Syria. We can and should do so much more to help people around the world, but there are so many ways that are better than blowing things and people up.

– Adam

* = Elizabeth Warren, probably the 2nd most progressive of the 100 senators, is currently undecided on the authorization of an attack in Syria.

“Today like yesterday: we reject your war.”

Attacking Syria Is a Terrible Idea

Dear _______,

I cannot emphasize enough how important I think it is that you vote against an attack on Syria.

No doubt, the behavior of the Assad regime in Syria deserves condemnation and some sort of reaction. But a reaction of military force is the wrong one. It’s expensive in every sense of the word. There is almost no support from the international community. A unilateral strike justified by Syria’s violation of international law would hypocritically violate international law itself. It will further enrage and instigate those who already oppose the United States. And most importantly, there are countless unintended, unpredictable consequences. We simply don’t know. Though most of what we can guess at isn’t good.

We may inadvertently enable the most extremist factions of the rebellion to rise to power in place of Assad, leaving the country ruled by an equally bad if not worse regime. We may instigate a more widespread conflict spilling over the region, maybe even the globe. We almost certainly would find ourselves more deeply entangled in the conflict, and for much longer, than is being suggested. And of course, we will surely kill civilians as “precision” strikes are subject to human error, leaving blood directly on our hands.

I find it disappointing that only now, after chemical weapons were used, do we consider ourselves obligated to respond. 1400 deaths using chemical weapons is awful. But an estimated 110,000 deaths over the last year are condemnable too, no? It’s as if we’ve been waiting for an excuse to get involved and demonstrate our ballistic might, rather than having been interested in preventing criminal behavior all along. If rules are truly manifestations of logic, then a government murdering a massive amount of its own people should warrant a response regardless of their method of killing.

Every argument being made for an attack rests on upholding our reputation while hinging on two things: the strike being limited in duration and scope and of a punitive (rather than preventative) nature. These reasons are glaringly insufficient and short-sighted. Punitive measures of the explosive variety are old-minded, ineffective as a deterrent, and fuel the flames of violent opposition and extremism. And if history (from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan) is to be regarded at all, then the notion that we can be involved only briefly is laughable. For even if we are swift and acute now, this will surely come back to bite us in the years ahead.

We can demonstrate strength and hold Assad accountable for having crossed a “red line” without using explosive, deadly force. Instead of choosing to fight fire with fire, we could, with less money and less bloodshed, invest in education and infrastructure, in Syria and beyond. This may not help justify our military’s size and budget, but it will, with clearer and more just conscience, improve the lives of innumerable humans without the devastation and aforementioned consequences of lethal force.

Perhaps we could respond by sending an abundance of medical aid and rebuilding supplies to the rebels and civilians instead? There are plenty of ways to send a message that we will not tolerate Assad’s behavior without murdering the murderers (and some unfortunate bystanders). In general, I find it shocking that we still – in the name of democracy and humanitarianism – are so ready and willing to take military action in these situations yet refrain from doing more to prevent them in the first place through education and assistance abroad. Imagine if the budget and scope of our military and peace corps were reversed. Imagine if we subverted extremism and violence through empowerment, medicine, and well-digging rather than ironic violence.

When we take a side in a war, we always leave the other side (and the friends and family members of people inadvertently blown up collaterally) angry at us. Almost no one is going to get angry at us for providing potable water, or school supplies, or anti-malarial bed nets, save for a few extremists who will be countered by their own empowered, educated, and still alive peers. If we aim to be true leaders for a better, more just, more free world, we must shift our priorities away from violence and toward the kind of humanitarianism embodied by, say, the Against Malaria Foundation or the Central Asia Institute.

Thus I ask you, at present with Syria, and moving forward with your influential position, to advocate a more sensible and peaceful policy for the benefit of both budgetary and moral reasons.

In closing, I ask you to please keep an open mind. Please take time to read arguments (arguably more eloquent than mine) advising against military action. Don’t let the will of a few loud voices in Washington with questionable track records, large economic players who profit from war, and congressional hawks dictate your decision. Listen to the people you represent. Most of us don’t want this. We can’t afford this. And the rest of humanity can’t either. We can do better.

Here are a few relevant articles that I highly recommend in case you haven’t read them yet:
from The Atlantic
from Slate
from Foreign Affairs

Jesse Houle

On vous aime tous,
à Québec, QC.

Nous, du porche de Cynthia et Nico, Québec

Nous, du porche de Cynthia et Nico, Québec



3 thoughts on “NON à la guerre en Syrie! NO War with Syria!

  1. I’m torn on this issue. My default position is always anti-war, but sometimes I ponder something like WWII and think that that maybe isn’t a UNIVERSAL approach(Is anything so in this universe?). Yes, I’m sure that pennies vs dollars of military aid into humanitarian programs would’ve done the world incalcuable good and prevented incalculable bad, but does that work at the present moment? I wonder if any besieged Jews or Poles or communists or political dissidents or Roma or resistance instigators or whomever would’ve preferred a new school or a mosquito net to say, D-Day. Admittedly comparing anything to the Nazis, especially on the internet, is usually pretty lazy and banal, but what do you have? Strong people gunning down, bombing, and now using chemical weapons against weak people. I’m on a small discussion forum of very thoughtful, insightful, interested people and we have been debating all of this for some time now. Here’s a post I’d like you to read and respond to, if you wish:

    “I feel a little weird because I’m by no means a hawk. I’d say 90% of what
    the US does militarily is driven either by delusions of economic plunder or
    out of bloodlust and vengeance. Nobody made a big deal about Libya because
    everyone hated Qadaffi and England and France had economic incentives.
    Nobody cared that we sent seals in to get Bin Laden because we’d spent the
    last 10 years frothing for his blood. As mentioned, we’ve had more invasive
    military operations than what’s being proposed in Syria dozens of times in
    the last few decades. So why are people freaking out now? To me, its that
    the sole purpose of this is to prevent the genocide of the Syrian people
    and no one cares. I know this isn’t you guys. For most of you this is a
    principled stand against violence in general, and legitimate skepticism
    that cruise missiles will do anything to deter Assad. But for most of the
    country, nobody is going to shed a tear over dead brown people. If you
    think I’m wrong, try to imagine what the response would be if 1500 jews had
    been gassed in Israel, or if 1500 people had been gassed in London or

    To answer your first question though, yes, I do believe the use of chemical
    weapons is a politically expedient tool to discuss military intervention in
    Syria, although judging by the reaction so far it hasn’t been very
    effective. Honestly, I think they should have intervened in Syria a year
    ago. Had they established a no fly zone as they did in Libya, this war
    would have been over 6 months ago and 10s of thousands of lives could have
    been saved. But chemical weapons *are* different. The difference between
    chemical and conventional weapons isn’t just that they are illegal, or that
    the people they kill are any more dead. It’s the *rate* at which people can
    be killed by WMDs that makes them so dangerous. Its true, 100,000 people
    have died in Syria so far. 10s of thousands have died in North Korea and
    Burma and all over the world. What Assad has the capability to do is gas
    half a million people in a weekend. Conventional weapons have no parallel.
    That is what the US is trying to prevent. If this could be prevented with
    sanctions or stern letters or the UN Obama would have done it a long time
    ago, but this can’t be prevented in those ways. If we let this stand, if
    there are no consequences for doing this, then every junta and dictator in
    the world will know that the international community is toothless and
    utterly devoid of moral conviction on this matter.”

    • I spent awhile replying to this and then thought I’d actually post it as its own entry. It’s a bit long, but I decided to respond point-by-point and it’s hard to keep such arguments Twitter-length. So please see our latest post and thanks for writing to us! – Jesse

  2. Pingback: Syriously | sowmanyreasons

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s