August 30, 2013 at 7:22 AM
U.S. involvement in Syria
An internal matter
I could not have said it better myself: “Let others punish Syria.” [“Editorial: Let others punish Syria,” Opinion, Aug. 29.]
Your view is cogent and compelling.
Events in Syria are repugnant and horrific. But it’s an internal matter, and none of our business. I am sorry, I am appalled, but I’m not interested in a U.S. intervention.
A military “shot across the bow” would have no strategic value that I can see. If you think it does, then ask, “What’s next?”
A foreign policy based on our cruise-missile capability is doomed to fail.
Look at Iraq. We obliterated their military and hung Saddam. Are Iraqis better off? I don’t think so.
House Speaker John Boehner is right on this one — get Congress involved.
Clark Douglas, Mount Vernon
U.S. involvement a terrible idea
President Barack Obama should not carry out any military strike against Syria. He should certainly not do so without congressional approval.
As Vice President Joe Biden noted several years ago as a senator, the president has no constitutional authority to take military action against a nation that does not pose any current or imminent danger to the U.S. Citing his expertise in constitutional law, Biden threatened to seek to impeach President Bush if he proceeded with military action in the Middle East without congressional approval. His arguments are still valid today.
Any military action against the Syrian government only aids al-Qaida, who are a factor in the rebel force and who, if the rebellion succeeds, could have great influence in any successor government.
There is no benefit to U.S. interests in starting yet another war in the Middle East, and all sorts of serious detriments.
Christopher Hodgkin, Friday Harbor
Trending with readers