U.S. should stay out
Although I agree with the unethical nature of the use of chemical weapons, I do not agree with taking quick action with Syria. [“Diplomats reach deal on Syria’s chemical weapons,” page one, Sept. 27.]
Despite much evidence indicating that President Bashar Assad was indeed behind the attacks, news coverage has also shown that Russia has reason to believe that Syrian rebels, not the president’s troops, were responsible for the attack — evidence that Sen. Kerry is, for the most part, denying.
By moving on Syria rather impulsively, the U.S. fuels its reputation for quickly exercising hard power on other countries. Moreover, despite this action seeming justified by the human-rights abuses in Syria, the U.S. is forgoing a primary objective: the protection and success of the state.
While an invasion may have quelled domestic paranoia and propagated the Middle East as a place of eternal conflict, resources are expended that could be used for the U.S. itself, a detrimental effect, especially while we are already running on virtual credit.
That being said, the U.S. may need to retire its role as international sheriff and focus its efforts internally, for we cannot give what we do not have.
Nicholas Louie, Tacoma