U.S. should not attack until there is broader support

I am a registered Democrat, and like many on both sides of the aisle, I am torn over Syria ("Deep Democratic misgivings over Syria," Sept. 5).

I know this is not an easy or clear-cut issue, as it is one that I myself have vacillated over. But when I think about how the international community is sitting on its hands; how we could be drawn into another long, protracted and expensive war — a war that will disproportionately shoulder the burdens of battle on those who mainly come from poor and minority communities; how this war could reignite the ad nauseam talk about deficit reduction and how it is imperative that we cut more domestic spending — which, by the way, plays right into the hands of those who want to turn this country into a poor, sick nation of undereducated and exploited labor — I have to take pause. And the reason I have to take this pause is because I believe that we are at a domestic tipping point. I can feel it, and the elders I have talked to about my feelings have confirmed them.

Now do not get me wrong, I am no isolationist, and I think the administration's reasoning is sound and its cause noble. But I think that we should wait. We should wait for Bashar Assad to — and I hate to say this — launch more chemical attacks on his people. This, I believe and I hope, will help generate a greater and broader international outrage and compel the international community to respond alongside the U.S. We need to wait for these countries to realize (with our urging, of course) that it is also in their best interests to join hands with us in checking Mr. Assad and any other country that may want to deploy these nefarious weapons. Right now, they do not. So right now, we should not.

Jesmond O. Riggins, Baltimore

Copyright © 2019, The Baltimore Sun, a Baltimore Sun Media Group publication | Place an Ad