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

U.S. intervention in Syria unjustified

President Barack Obama is making the hard sell for intervention in Syria ("Obama faces 2-front threat," Sept. 9).

He alludes vaguely to numerous bad things that will happen if the U.S. does not intervene. He ignores the bad effects likely to ensue with such an intervention. He alleges bad outcomes, just like the "Domino Theory" of the Vietnam era was presented as an ominous consequence of not invading that country.

The present argument about Syria is that it will be a short, limited intervention, with no spread of war and chaos. This is the same reason we were given for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. But how wrong that was. We haven't gotten the best of al-Qaida or the Taliban in 12 years of war there.

The Syrian war is very complex, and the effects of intervention are not so cut and dried as Mr. Obama asserts.

Frederick Knowles, Chestertown

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...