Eshoo statement

    September 11, 2013  Dear Mr. Rudow, I want to thank you again for contacting me to express your views on the President's proposal for a military strike on Syria. Attached is a statement that I issued today with my position on this proposal.



If you have any questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas.



Most gratefully,



Anna G. Eshoo

Member of Congress

 









OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE ANNA G. ESHOO (CA-18)

For Immediate Release

September 11, 2013

http://eshoo.house.gov

Contact: Charles Stewart

(202) 225-8104

charles.stewart@mail.house.gov

ESHOO STATEMENT ON SYRIA

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) released the following statement on the issue of Syria:

“I welcome President Obama’s announcement and commend him for pursuing the Russian diplomatic proposal to disarm and destroy Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons. This diplomatic path holds out hope for the world that the situation can be addressed in a way that has always been one of America’s great strengths—leading with integrity to avert war.

“Our most solemn responsibility as Members of Congress is to use our best judgment to protect the national security of our nation. A decision to use military force therefore requires we be able to answer the following questions:

. Is this in the national security interests of the U.S.?

. Will this action make us safer?

. Will it make the Syrian people safer?

. Does Syria pose an imminent threat to the United States?

“There is no question that striking Syria is an act of war. It would be preemptive, unilateral, and contrary to how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy for decades.

“I am not naïve about the very real dangers our nation faces, but these dangers cannot be removed by military action alone. In fact, the distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made this clear in his recent testimony to Congress:

‘Militarily, I can state that we can achieve the goal of deterring and degrading. Take note that I didn’t say we can prevent.’

“What is more determinative is the power of our ideas, rather than the power of our military. There is a place for military action, but Syria is not that place.

“When the U.S. strayed from its historical moorings, we learned painful and costly lessons that might alone does not get the job done. Instead of diplomacy, containment and coalitions, our military interventions, invasions and surges have left countries in turmoil and emboldened jihadists, making the world more dangerous. We must learn from the lessons of recent history, or we will repeat the failures.

“I believe a preemptive and unilateral strike against Syria is wrong.

“I believe it will make the world more dangerous, not safer.

“I believe it will not reverse the tide on the ground in Syria.

“I believe that using force for the sake of force is not in the interest of our national security and will be counterproductive.

“I believe, as do thousands of my constituents, that going to war against Syria—regardless of how targeted or limited the strikes—will implicate the U.S. in a civil war, cause possible retaliations in the region destabilizing it even more, and add to the ill will against our country.

“I will cast a ‘no’ vote to the President’s request for authorization to strike Syria should it be taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives.”

###