Saturday, July 26, 2014

COMMENTARY: JOHN B. QUIGLEY Modern anti-war efforts focus on facts behind claims

September 07. 2013 10:39PM
Story Tools
PrintPrint | E-MailEMail | SaveSave | Hear Generate QR Code QR
Send to Kindle

A missile strike on Syria generates scant enthusiasm in the United States.

Already one can perceive the outlines of a new anti-war movement in this country.

In the past, anti-war efforts have focused on the harm we cause in the countries where we intervene. Now anti-war sentiment is more broadly based. The harm we cause ourselves is assuming new prominence.

A new anti-war movement will be more sophisticated than in the past. In 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave the U.N. Security Council a package of false data about Iraq, the news media accepted it.

Anti-war elements debunked Powell’s data within days, but that debunking did not reach the public at large. Now, as Secretary of State John Kerry recites new intelligence data to rationalize a missile strike in Syria, scrutiny is quick in coming.

Kerry has expressed “high confidence” that on Aug. 21, the government of Syria used a nerve agent called sarin against a neighborhood in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.

History should give pause, and not only the Iraq episode of 2003. Back in 1998, the Clinton administration sent ocean-based missiles into a pharmaceutical production plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, destroying the plant.

A component of a different nerve agent, one called VX, was allegedly being produced at the plant, to be handed over by Sudan to al-Qaida. A State Department press release at the time recited, “The U.S. is confident that this Sudanese government-controlled facility is involved in the production of chemical weapons agents.”

That “confidence” was later shattered when independent analysts were unable to confirm any traces of such production at the plant.

Regardless of how the evidence plays out on Syria and sarin, anti-war activists are focusing on examining facts.

Also gaining more scrutiny are the aims of a military action. Already Congress is skeptical that a missile strike in Syria would serve a valid purpose.

President Obama claims that striking Syria is in our “national interest,” but his articulation of that interest is muddled, since Syria’s weaponry does not threaten the United States. He hints at “degrading” Syria’s overall military capacity, so perhaps the chemical weapons are not his only focus.

Are we sending a message to Iran, perhaps unrelated to the chemical weapons issue? Are we attacking only because President Obama inadvisedly made a threat about use of chemical weapons as a “red line”?

The anti-war movement can now count on greater public support. It is able to draw on public sentiment that government might be better off minding the store at home.

John B. Quigley is a professor of law at Ohio State University. Readers may write to him at Moritz College Law, 55 West 12th St., Columbus, Ohio 43210.

comments powered by Disqus Commenting Guidelines
Mortgage Minute

Search for New & Used Cars

Used New All

Search Times Leader Classifieds to find just the home you want!

Search Times Leader Classifieds to find just what you need!

Search Pet Classifieds
Dogs Cats Other Animals

Social Media/RSS
Times Leader on Twitter
Times Leader on Youtube
Times Leader on Google+
The Times Leader on Tumblr
The Times Leader on Pinterest
Times Leader RSS Feeds