I appreciate the attention The Sun has devoted to President Barack Obama's plan to attack Syria —articles, letters and commentaries. There is little debate, though, as the vast majority of the people oppose this counter-productive strategy. I despise the tyranny of Bashar Assad's government, but he should be isolated and eventually brought to justice. He will not suffer from a U.S. attack, but Syrian people are sure to experience death and destruction.
As the peace movement protests President Obama's potentially reckless plunge into the abyss, some elected officials are ignoring the voices of the people. For example, U.S. Ben Cardin voted for this ignoble attack. U.S. Sen. Barbara Mikulski expressed reservations, but she eventually caved in to the administration's pressure. Also, there is speculation that my representative, Rep. Elijah Cummings, will vote to attack. This is disheartening.
As a long-time peace activist, I can remember the vote to go to war against Iraq. Baltimore's peace movement worked very hard, and both Senators Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes voted against authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in October 2002. Representative Cummings and then-Representative Cardin also voted no.
There are a myriad of arguments why an attack on Syria is misguided. However, I offer one not seen before. Our legislators should vote against the resolution in order to protect President Obama's legacy. There are many potential ramifications to an attack — sieges at U.S. embassies, the kidnapping of U.S. citizens, car bomb explosions at U.S. facilities and much more.
Let us hope the resolution is voted down. Then the State Department, instead of beating war drums, engages in diplomacy aimed at setting up a peace conference and providing massive aid to the Syrian refugees. Instead of world-wide scorn, Mr. Obama would be hailed as a peacemaker. It's about time that he starts earning his Nobel Peace Prize.
Max Obuszewski, Baltimore