I recently wrote to Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley with my concerns about possible U.S. military action in Syria.  He wrote me a well-reasoned response, while still leaving room to consider military action.  To me, this is not acceptable.  As his tax-paying constituent, who has seen an overwhelming lack of support for U.S. military action, I think he needed to hear a stronger message.  Therefore, here is my reply to his email:

Good evening, Senator Merkley,
Thank you for my response to my concerns about Syria.  It sounds like you have been very diligent in exploring a very complex situation.  My views on this are less complex.  I was against military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and everywhere else, and am now against military action in Syria.  I am not some Johnny-come-lately who is anti-war because "it was Obama's idea."  To be fair though, this is not a partisan issue; I literally have not heard a single one of my friends on either side of the aisle defend the idea of attacking Syria.  The concept of "limited strikes" leaves me with the same sick feeling in the pit of my stomach as the image seared into my brain of G.W. Bush in his ill-fitting flight suit, proclaiming "Mission Accomplished."  I'm not buying it for one minute.
Our military was founded to protect our country.  It was the clear intent of the founding fathers to wisely mind our own business.  Since then, the war profiteers have convinced decision makers otherwise, much to the horror of the people in the countries we occupy.  I have yet to hear exactly what attack Syria has launched on us that we need to defend.
I currently have a young friend, an Iraqi refugee, who has traveled to Syria to support the people.  The people of Syria DO NOT want us there.  Since they are the proported victims of the attack (and there is contention about who exactly used the chemical weapons in the first place), shouldn't the victims have a say as to whether or not they will be further victimized?  The people of Syria are being used as human shields; any attack on our part will merely further the corrupt agenda of the current regime.
Why is it that force is our first option instead of our last?  What have we gained by this?  I can tell you, sir, what we have lost... we have lost our standing and reputation internationally.  We have lost generations of young men and women to combat, suicide, chronic disabilities and illness, exposure to deadly chemicals, PTSD, broken families, and ruined lives.  Sadly, the children are watching, and our society's children are being raised on war, and learning that force is the way to solve problems... gee, I wonder why we have so much violence!  We have destroyed our economy, while people are jobless and homeless in the streets.  In Tillamook, our local Salvation Army Food Bank is shutting down, another victim of the war economy reality.  Last Saturday, I spoke to a friend of mine, a middle aged woman raising grandchildren, who was in tears, because she doesn't know how she is going to survive without the food bank.  We don't have the dollars to feed Oregonians, but we have them to send missiles to strike innocent people?!  As your constituent, while I respect your research and willingness to see all sides, I am also waiting for you to condemn any military action in Syria, or anywhere.
We have sprayed chemical weapons such as white phosphorus, in violation of international law, near civilian populations such as Fallujah, causing some of the most horrific birth defects imaginable, not to mention the soaring illness rates in those areas.  We use a drone program with an 80% accuracy rate.  Would 80% be accurate enough for you if it were in your neighborhood?  We have bombed villages, killed countless innocent people, destroyed schools, hospitals, entire neighborhoods, in our bloodthirst for the "terrorists."  Then as the children's bodies are buried, we call it "collateral damage."  Can you imagine, for one moment, trying to raise children in one of the places we invade?  The horror is unthinkable.
Enough is enough!!!!  Please speak out against this newest threat by the U.S.  It is becoming increasingly obvious to the entire world who the real terrorists are.  The Syrian people don't need our kind of "intervention."  Better yet, let's provide the war dollars to the agencies who are actually reaching out and providing food and medical care.  The profiteers will be mad, but they are obscenely wealthy already.  It's not our job, and never was, to police the entire world and play God in the process.  I am in full agreement with you that the international community needs to join together to address human rights abuses in Syria; I just think for once we need to be creative and find a non-military way to do so.
I am against all war, I am against this war, and, to quote a bumper sticker, I am already against the next war.  Please join me in opposing more death and destruction. 
Thank you for your time, again, and your willingness to hear all sides of the issue.  That is why I voted for you.
Sincerely,
Romy Carver