I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the military strikes being advocated by the president against Syria. This is by no means with disregard to the many atrocities perpetuated by the regime. It is motivated by a fear that such an action may bring about vastly more harm than good and in the end only serve to inflame and expand the conflict.
The president has claimed that this strike would be limited in scope and intended only to punish Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons. But the question remains of what happens next. What will the course be if another chemical attack is launched? Will the president order further strikes? How far might that escalate?
It is being argued that this should be done as an example. But initiating an act of war is an example too.
Secretary of State John Kerry stated, "There is no ultimate military solution. It has to be political. It has to happen at the negotiating table, and we are deeply committed to getting there." Would such an action help us get there?
PATRICK THOMAS, Richland