Questions About the U.S. Strikes on Syria

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/14/opinion/us-syria-attack.html

Version 0 of 1.

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Launches Strikes on Syrian Targets” (front page, April 14):

As the Syria tragedy continues to unfold, one bizarre fact is obvious: There are no consistently rational actors on either side. Why would Syria use, and Russia condone, chemical attacks when Syria is already beating the insurgency? Why would the United States, France and Britain launch a strike so circumscribed that it is unlikely to accomplish anything but risk further engagement with Russia?

The only explanations for Syria’s action (but by no means an excuse) might be loss of patience and the desire to limit further damage to infrastructure. There is no explanation for the Western response other than continued prosecution of a feckless strategy that has left real estate stretching from Libya east all the way to Pakistan a boiling cauldron.

Much of the Middle East and South Asia has never manifested tendencies toward either benevolent despotism or functioning democracy. But the scale of violence, however regrettable, was nowhere near today’s. There were flimsy, but functioning, international checks and balances. Our interference, beginning with failure in Afghanistan right from the outset, has reflected our total lack of understanding of regional dynamics, and has been instrumental in creating a multi-regional catastrophe.

The solution, once and for all, is to get out. We no longer have the moral or military capability to fix matters, especially since the American electorate is fed up with our foreign policy incompetence.

Chemical weapons are horrible, but to claim that they are worse than hordes of soldiers and insurgents chopping off arms with machetes or committing mass rape is a false morality. We can no longer be the world’s policeman in a world where the rule of law has lost its relevance.

The use of chemical weapons is, in fact, a violation of international law. Let the international community handle it, which means the United Nations. The United Nations is incapable? So be it. Fix the United Nations. Construct new international forums that will act. Or accept reality. Only three countries acted in this situation, while the rest of the world stood back, a few countries applauding and the rest apathetic.

The idea of standing back while outrages such as chemical attacks occur may signify moral bankruptcy, and that is regrettable. But mindless military action may be worse.

JOSEPH BLADY, FRANKLIN LAKES, N.J.

The writer is a former policy and intelligence officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 2003-2010.

To the Editor:

Regardless of what one thinks of the reported (and yet to be independently verified) chemical weapons attack in Syria, it should concern American citizens that since events in Syria pose no direct threat to us, and as it was not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, our government’s attack on Syria violates international law.

ALAN MEYERS, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.