First Post, letter to my Congressman

It is sort of a random start to my blog but I imagine a lot of this stuff will be random.  There are lots of way to be involved with your government and one of the easiest is to write your representatives.

My Congressman, Representative Peter Welch, just introduced a bill and made at least the local news in doing so.   The press release on the bill.  The thing that caught my eye about it was that it was advertized as bipartisan.  Nothing is bipartisan in the US House anymore!  Even the farm bill failed to pass for the first time in 40 years.

My excitement subsided as I heard about the bill though.  It is a bill that prohibits any US military action in Syria.  My fear is that it is bipartisan because it is an odd combination of anti-war liberals and anti-Obama conservatives.  My fears are explained more in my letter below.

I like my Congressman, I voted for him, and will continue to vote for him, but I'm concerned about the bill so I emailed the letter to him.  I wasn't sure about whether I should send actual mail or email but why waste paper.  Someday maybe I'll study which was is the better way to get a response.

Day 1 in the books.

THE LETTER

Dear Congressman Welch,

I recently read that you are leading a bill that seeks to prevent military intervention into Syria. While I understand your sentiment, I am concerned that you are sending some unintended messages with the introduction of the bill and that there may be some unintended consequences if it were to pass.

First, your bill implies that you believe President Obama would drag us into another war like Iraq or Afghanistan. I certainly don't believe he would, and I hope you do not either because you know him better than I, and I would trust your judgment over my own here. I believe that President Obama would never enter a ground war for all same reasons you set forth in your statement. I know that you do not intend to imply this but I could easily see other Congressmen intentionally slandering the President through the bill.

Second, your bill implies that the President could start a war without Congressional authorization. I understand there is precedent for limited military action without Congressional preauthorization but Iraq and Afghanistan were pre-authorized. My fear is that you may be setting bad constitutional precedent through implication; I wouldn't want pre-denial of military intervention to become expected or requisite.

Finally, I am concerned that there could be an unintended consequence of your bill if an exigent national security threat arose in Syria. If Syrians rolled out long range missiles and pointed them at Israel or our military bases in the middle east the President would be unable to even send jet fighters to stop the missiles without having to wait for Congress to assemble and vote, which could be much too late.

I understand your sentiment and motivations. I also applaud you for giving attention to a very important issue that often gets forgotten in the media. Please continue to do everything you can to keep Syria in focus. I particularly worry about the refugees from this awful civil war and I'm sure that after you visited them you are committed to do everything in you can to help them.

Thank you for your attention and thank you for your service,

David Cain

South hero, VT