The Vermont politician with arguably the most diplomatic experience in the Middle East won’t have a chance to vote this week on whether the U.S. should strike Syria.
That’s because former ambassador and veteran diplomat Peter Galbraith now serves in Vermont’s state senate, whose foreign policy jurisdiction ends at the New Hampshire border.
But if he could vote, Galbraith says, he’d oppose President Obama’s proposed strikes.
“We should not, because the airstrikes won’t accomplish anything,” Galbraith says. “They are not going to degrade the Syrian government’s ability to use the weapons. They are not going to change the military balance. So they’re really about making a statement, and that’s not, in my view, an appropriate use of military force.”
Galbraith knows a thing or two about chemical weapons. Twenty-five years ago this month, while serving on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Galbraith traveled to the Iraqi-Turkish border, where he uncovered evidence of Saddam Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds. That discovery led to Senate passage of the “Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988,” which Galbraith credits with prompting Hussein to halt his use of chemical weapons.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
“…But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.”
I’m against invading Syria, but I stopped caring what this man thinks a long time ago.