Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Why must U.S. attack Syria?

If I truly believed Syria's Bashar Assad used Sarin gas to kill his people, I'd be outraged ("Where is the outrage?" Sept. 4). However, after watching much of Tuesday's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, I'm troubled by the overuse of the term, "alleged." The word suggests doubt.

If Syria's "alleged" actions are so dangerous, where are that country's neighbors? The Israeli Air Force could strike Damascus within minutes. And next door is Turkey with a large standing army. It appears they're not too alarmed.

So why must America, a half-planet away, launch an attack against a sovereign nation, one that has done nothing to harm us? Let's not forget, the Iraq War was initiated shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, and Americans were let to believe there was complicity. When this proved false, the entire Middle East battlefield became suspect. Now it's happening again. Why should President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry be surprised?

R.E. Heid, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Mission accomplished [Editorial]
    Mission accomplished [Editorial]

    Our view: The destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stocks has made the whole world a safer place

  • Syrian chemical weapons may linger [Letter]
    Syrian chemical weapons may linger [Letter]

    Are The Sun's editors naive enough to really believe that the last of Syrian chemical weapons have been turned over ("Muscular diplomacy," June 26)? I think that in the haste to find something to praise President Barack Obama for, you may again find egg on your editorial page. Remember the "red...