Letters: Not so fast on Syria
Re “A ‘red line’ on Syria,” Editorial, April 25
The lessons of our disastrous invasion of Iraq have been ignored. Syria presents no direct threat to the U.S., and yet the foreign policy elite and the media are increasingly saying we may have to intervene militarily in that country’s civil war because a “red line” may have been crossed.
The Obama administration must resist the urge to take on another war; it should focus on rebuilding our nation.
Furthermore, any U.S. intervention in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons would be grossly hypocritical, since our forces in Iraq used white phosphorous and ammunition made from depleted uranium, which have been linked to an increased rate of birth defects there.
If our Mideast allies feel threatened by Syria, they should intervene, not us.
Joseph Tillotson
Redondo Beach
As a follow-up to this editorial, The Times should explain how “an operation to secure or destroy the regime’s chemical weapons” would differ from an invasion.
If invasion and occupation are what The Times advocates, just come out and say so.
John R. Yates
Los Angeles
ALSO:
Letters: Perspectives on a cartoon life
Letters: The fine print of obesity surgery
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
