Interceding in Syria would be dangerous
To the Editor:
President Obama's lack of consistency in his foreign policy and his lack of continuity in his administrative plans have perplexed both friend and foe alike. His speech on possible military action in Syria was an attempt at camouflaging what has proven to be an ad hoc, convoluted and inconsistent foreign policy.
In an administration that failed to secure the Bengazi diplomatic facility resulting in the death of four Americans, including an ambassador, the president claims a clear and steadfast foreign policy. When it is painfully obvious that Secretary of State John Kerry's extemporaneous remark about securing Syria's chemical weapons has now impetuously become policy. Furthermore, this new direction provides an escape hatch for Obama's reckless remarks about red lines in the sand.
To intercede in a civil war where the opposition to the government is fractious and unreliably diverse in their individual agendas, is equally ludicrous and dangerous.
The Russian initiative to avoid a United States attack on their close ally Syria should be scrutinized under an electron microscope. To trust the Russians to comport themselves as honest brokers is foolish.
To trust an international force in the middle of a war to ensure the accounting and disposal of chemical weapons is insurmountable. Regardless of the outcome of either notion, the United States should not enter another foreign civil war, which will undoubtedly leave America slogging through another quagmire. Hasn't the military involvement in Korea and Vietnam taught us anything?
The horror of war and its collateral damage sadly occurs in conflicts all over the world. America should not involve itself as the world's policeman any longer. We have too many problems domestically and fiscally to resolve. Moreover, we should not involve ourselves in a civil war because a president of questionable leadership and mercurial policy stances misspoke!