Here's the Reuters report on it: Dozens of U.S. diplomats urge military strikes against Syria's AssadEven as a pacifist, I can tell you that from a global-chessboard mentality, you:
1) Work with Assad and Putin to defeat al Qaeda and IS in Syria and Iraq and anywhere else they pop up
2) After al Qaeda and IS are out of Syria, continue working with Assad and Putin to establish a new Syrian Constitution acceptable to the Syrian electorate and
3) Hold a free and fair Syrian presidential election in which Assad either wins or loses.
What you don't do is escalate militarily against Russia and its various allies in the conflict (Iran, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiites, and others). There's no sense in escalating at all.
The fall of Assad by US military means would not mean a more stable, more democratic government than that which could be created while allowing Assad to run democratically to be accepted or rejected by the Syrian people (all of them).
Toppling him or insisting that he not be allowed to run are two completely undemocratic approaches either of which would only serve a destabilizing purpose conjured up by neocons and neoliberals.
All of that said, if you think Putin is some weakling who will just stand idly by while the US pounds the Syrian military, you're an ignoramus. However, it is the fact that Putin wouldn't just stand idly by that prompts neocon/neolib empire builders to risk WWIII.
You don't think Chinese troops and industrial might wouldn't throw in with Russia rather than simply wait it out only to be the next target of the neocons? Is the US pivot against China willing to bank on all the states around the South China Sea jumping in against China while Russia has its hands full all around its borders? Would they even prevail if they were to give it their all? Only China is nuclear of them.
The US would have to hit China hard and first and pray that China couldn't still retaliate, a prayer that would not be answered. US cities would be hit with nuclear warheads, millions of Americans would be incinerated, vast swaths of America would be radioactive (virtually uninhabitable), and millions more would die agonizing deaths from radiation sickness.
These so-called mid-level diplomats envision sucking Europe back into world war created by US global hegemonic designs (megalomania, frankly).
Look, the US is not as militarily powerful in the conventional sense as most Americans are led to believe. More importantly, Russia is also not going to be invaded without firing off its nuclear arms to stop the main aggressor (the US). Just as with the case with China, Russian nuclear warheads would reach US soil: major US cities. The US does not have a Star Wars shield!
So, what this is on the part of the signatories is dangerous, stupid bluster.
I would instantly terminate the State Department employment of every single one of those who signed the nonpublic "cable." We should simply not have such maniacs working at the State Department.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)