"Absolutely Not" should be the Syrian vote

”Absolutely not,” should be the resounding cry throughout the land from the people to their representatives in response to President Barack Obama’s quest for a military strike in Syria. Weariness over the costly and bloody Iraq and Afghanistan wars should be just one of many reasons for members of Congress not to authorize a strike on Syria. Of course, front and foremost is the diplomatic option, proposed by Russia, to have international monitors take control of Syria’s chemical weapons. So far, President Basher al-Assad has agreed to the plan. But even if that weren’t to materialize – hopefully it will – an air attack on Syria is the wrong move. Never mind the powder keg a Syrian strike could turn out to be – with Syria, Iran and Russia on one side and Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States on the other. What sense does it make to bomb Syria and risk killing or maiming more children and families? One of President Obama’s arguments for an attack on Syria cited a significant number of children killed in a chemical attack outside Damascus towards the end of August. Remember, the first 50 strikes against “high value targets” in the Iraq War all missed their intended targets, resulting in scores of civilian deaths and injuries, according to published reports. And how dependable is the intelligence? We know elements of Al Qeada are sometimes fighting alongside the Syrian opposition forces. And we know the CIA has been aiding rebel fighters there. But to what extent has the CIA become involved and to what extent would a military strike simply be serving the military industrial complex?