I appreciate the reasoned attitude expressed by Martin Glaser in his letter, "Chemical attack remains unproven" (April 11).
Granted, it certainly appears that the most likely perpetrator of the chemical attack on Syrian rebels would be President Bashar Assad since the chemicals were delivered by aircraft. But having just been assured by President Donald Trump that the U.S. was not pursuing getting rid of him, why would President Assad risk altering the status quo with this outrageous attack? Drones could have dropped these chemical rather than conventional aircraft and drones could have come from most anywhere.
At any rate, the Syrians should be allowed to deal with this themselves rather than being subject to persistent interference by other countries including the U.S. which has the least "skin in the game." Other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and especially Israel have far more interest in Syria's civil war than does the U.S.
It was recently observed that the U.S. entry into World War I actually had a very far-reaching disastrous outcome. The parties involved were already on the point of exhaustion and ready to make a reasonable peace. The entry of the U.S. into the war shifted the balance totally, making possible the punishing treaty which eventually led to World War II.
Chemical weapons have been used by many countries including the U.S (notably Agent Orange) and Israel (white phosphorus in Gaza). Any countries using these illegal weapons should be sanctioned by the United Nations.
Doris Rausch, Columbia