Dear editor:
Every day the media inundates us with pictures and reports of the horrific violence in Syria all of which multiplies the warhawk's drumbeat for US intervention to help "the people" throw out their ruthless despot and institute "democracy".
Remember Iraq. Merely ten years ago, the US government bambozzled the public into believing our national security was threatened by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and led us into an unnecessary and expensive war.
What interest does the US have in destabilizing Syria? What will the US gain by supporting one sect of Muslims against another? One tribe against another? A theocracy is more probable than any democracy if Assad is deposed.
From history we learn that the Battle of Antietam during the US Civil War was a critical victory for the North; not only did it allow Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation but just as importantly, it also thwarted efforts by the European Powers to intervene as a "mediator" in our conflict, a move much sought by the South. Antietam granted time to settle our differences ourselves.
How can we ignore the suffering of innocents in Syria? My six year old grand-daughter was asked by her primary teacher grandmother what to do about a nose-picking boy in Grandma's class. After due consideration, she said,"Here's my 'vice Gahma. Don't look at him." Wisdom, indeed! Yes, in a civil war innocents will suffer and die. As in our country, not all rebellions succeed, especially when unsupported by foreign intervention.
The US has no vital interest in how Syria is governed. Not all suffering requires our relief. In the present circumstances, the US should not take sides, should not intervene and let the Syrians decide. In the meantime, don't look at it.
Gregory Fraser
Warren