Letter: Charting right course on Syria
President Barack Obama pauses after speaking to members of the media in the Cabinet Room of the White House. (Aug. 30, 2013) Credit: AP
Something has to be done about the use of chemical weapons in Syria ["Assessing evidence," News, Sept. 9]. However, the United States should not be leading this intervention.
The lead role should be played by the United Nations. What is its purpose if not to intervene in this crime? We can then support the UN's actions, but not lead against Syria.
Peter L. Heller, Valley Stream
President Barack Obama has not declared to my satisfaction what he hopes to achieve by bombing Syria, which would be an act of war. Will he destroy stocks of chemical weapons? Will he destroy means of delivering these weapons? Will he try to topple Bashar Assad?
Since our government has already telegraphed various potential actions, the Syrians are reportedly moving key assets.
Our country's reputation has suffered badly in the past few years, and it will suffer more if we dump hundreds of missiles on Syria to achieve nothing more than a pinprick.
Since the U.S. government is unlikely to come up with a meaningful plan for bombing, I ask Congress to vote against Obama's nonplan.
Joseph Scrandis, Westbury
