Let's stay out of Syria

Are we about to make a big mistake? It may depend on how well the citizenry expresses itself on the topic as soon as possible. I'm talking about the possibility of “teaching (Syrian) President Bashar al-Assad a lesson.” I've never heard of “teaching” by bombing. The only purpose of bombing is to destroy property or kill people. It almost always does both.

So, what do we bomb - the canisters of stored lethal chemicals, so that they can't be used by Assad? I'm confident that our administration is not considering such a thing - at least that won't be the intention.

So, after a bombing, the terrible chemicals will still exist. Isn't it possible that Assad will then assume the gloves are off and anything goes? Who can possibly guess what's next if that assumption is made?

I can't forget that I am a citizen of the only nation in the world that has used atomic weapons of mass destruction against human beings - about 80,000 dead in 10 seconds - twice. But I think we can tell other nations that they should not kill people - it's just that bombing is not the way to tell them. There are other means - diplomacy with all actors in the region, etc.

The Syrian civil war is a terrible thing, but it is dangerous and counterproductive to get involved in a military way.

Don Laughlin

Iowa City