Resolution of situation in Syria

Dear Mr. President,

I am sending this to the President of the United States, the President of the Russian Federation, and the President of Syria
(via the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations).

I am greatly encouraged by your current efforts to resolve the problem of chemical weapns in Syria without using military force. In my opinion, the best way to accomplish this goal is for Russia to propose a UN Security Council resolution as follows:

1. Syria will immediately become a signatory to the 1997 Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC).
2. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) will dispatch inspection teams to Syria as soon as possible to secure all chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities with the cooperation of the Government of Syria.These teams should be composed of not more than 10% of members from the United States.
3. Due to the ongoing conflict, the United Nations will assemble forces to protect and defend the OPCW teams. These forces should be composed of units from many countries, with probably most of them from the Russian Federation (since the Russian Army is known to be competent in the handling and transport of these weapons), with the United States providing air superiority and logistical support, but no ground forces. The UNPF forces will not intervene in the civil struggle in Syria, but will only defend the OPCW teams and themselves.
4. The chemical weapons shall be transported from Syria to
internationally-agreed sites for destruction. Chemical weapons
production facilities shall be demolished or rendered inoperable.

I believe that this path will lead to a solution to the current
situation which is acceptable to the international community and with minimal chance of loss of non-combatant life.

Thank you for your time,

Intervention in Syria

Sent to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Brian Schatz, and Sen. Maize Hirono

I understand that the use of chemical weapons by the Bashir Assad regime in Syria is a serious affront to international norms of behavior and must be addressed by the community of nations. I also understand that, due to statements made by President Obama, the reputation and resolve of the United States are on the line on this issue. I wish, however, to urge extreme caution before the United States takes any unilateral action in this matter.

While it appears to me - a citizen without access to any classified data -
that the evidence indicates that the Assad regime (or elements within the regime) did indeed initiate the August chemical attacks, the sense of urgency surrounding this enter question is disturbingly reminiscent of the buildup to the Iraq war in 2003. Then, as now, we were told that US intelligence agencies had strong evidence to justify our proposed actions, which evidence later proved to be incorrect.

While I am glad that President Obama has asked for authorization from Congress for any proposed action against Syria, I urge you to require strong international support for any military strike. The United States is not the policeman for the world - if the community of nations objects strongly to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, any punitive action should be truly international in scope and in composition.

As far as I can see, there is no imminent threat to the United States or our interests from Syria, and no need for precipitate unilateral action. I also fail to see how any type of remote strikes can effectively "punish" the Assad regime for the alleged chemical weapons attacks. It would be difficult to destroy the existing chemical stockpiles (without releasing and dispersing the agents) with anything less than a JDAM or nuclear attack, either of which would probably result in many civilian casualties - which are exactly what we are trying to prevent. Destruction of C&C facilities would hamper the regime's military operations, but wold not preclude subsequent use of chemical weapons - and what do we do then?

The threat here is non-existent. The mission is unclear. The consequences are unknown. In this situation, in my opinion we should authorize military force only in response to a UN Security Council resolution. I agree with UN Secretary Ban that any other attack against a nation which has not attacked us is a violation of the United Nations Charter and thus illegal under international law. How can we claim to be upholding international law (prohibiting chemical weapons use, even though Syria is not a signatory) while at the same time flauting international law by attacking a Member of the United Nations in violation of the Charter?

I urge you to vote against any use of US military forces against Syria unless in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution. The United States should never initiate military action against a nation which has not attacked, and as far as we know has no intention or capability of attacking, us.

Sincerely,
Henry Stilmack

Assault Weapons and other matters

Dear Sen. Reid,

While I realize that, as Senator from Nevada, your primary obligation is to the citizens of Nevada, it is in your capacity as Senate Majority Leader - which is a position with national implications - that I address these remarks to you.

I can understand from a political standpoint that you would prefer not to bring Bills to the floor of the Senate unless you believe they will ultimately pass, but how many more mass shootings will it take for Congress to actually do something? We had an "assault weapons" ban for 10 years, and I can't see that it did any damage to the Republic. Some issues are so important that, even if you do not think a Bill will pass, there is value in forcing a vote on it so Senators will be on the record.

We are always being told that, as citizens, the way we can counter the influence of lobbyists is by bringing pressure on our Representatives and Senators. We cannot do that, however, if they do not get to (or have to) vote on issues! There is no way for the public to hold our Legislators accountable if they never do anything.

In my opinion, there are several issues that deserve a vote. Senator Feinstein's amendment is just one of them. Why not break out the various gun control proposals into separate Bills, and schedule up-or-down votes in them individually? At least, that way we would all know where our Legislators stand.

I am also very disappointed that no meaningful filibuster reform was done in this Congress. It is obvious that your "handshake agreement" with Senator McConnell is not going to work - the least you could do is force any Senator blocking a Bill or nomination to hold the floor, as Senator Paul did last week.

Please reconsider your decision to not bring Senator Feinstein's Bill up for a vote. The entire country would thank you.

Sincerely,
--
Henry Stilmack