Opinion: Obama’s inaction on Syria might have seemed cruel, but it was in America’s best interest

To the editor: Abdulfattah Alkhaled wonders at the conclusion of his piece whether any acts of “barbarism” get under President Obama’s skin. I’m guessing the horrors of Aleppo, Syria, have gotten deep under Obama’s skin, as does the prospect of involvement that could eventually lead to the loss of American lives. (“Message from Syria to the United States: We’ll never again believe your lofty rhetoric,” Opinion, Dec. 20)

Beginning with Korea, the United States has become quite involved in conflicts within other nations, and none have restored a democratic ruling body when our military has been seriously involved. The cost in lives and division within our society may be immeasurable. U.S. military interventions in the Islamic world have made everyone worse off every time.

Alkhaled fails to mention whether he has taken up arms and fought in the streets of Aleppo against Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces. Perhaps Obama made a mistake in publicly declaring support for the Syrian resistance years ago, a move that seems to anger the author as much as the lack of military support for the rebels.

No one can say whether greater U.S. military involvement in Syria would have made things better for the people, nor can anyone predict that our lack of involvement will make Syria worse off over the long run.

Brian Miller, Echo Park

..

To the editor: Alkhaled is bitterly angry that Obama and the United States did not intervene militarily to save Syrians who were slaughtered by the butcher of Damascus and his Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah co-conspirators.

Despite millions of U.S. dollars spent training the so-called moderate opposition, hapless civilians were caught between Assad loyalists and the radical Islamists of the Nusra Front, Islamic State and others. This vile mixture is contained in the bottle of misery that is Syria and it has a clear stamp on its bottom: “Made in Syria.”

Looking across the Muslim world, one sees sectarian violence, brutal dictators and blood-thirsty radicals. Islamic leaders have had centuries to learn to accept the different varieties of their faith and the ethnic groups in their lands and have completely failed. So if Alkhalad is looking for those who should feel shame about the debacle in Syria, he could start by looking closer to home.

Joel Jaffe, Beverly Hills

..

To the editor: Since the United States has the most powerful military force in the world, Alkhaled implies, it was the obligation of our president to commit those forces to a ground and air war in Syria .

Yes, the human suffering in Syria has reached the level of genocide. The world has not seen photos like this since the Battle of Britain.

Might Alkhaled point his finger of scorn at the Syrian military, which clearly does not have a problem bombing its own citizens? Is it just “following orders”? Is there a moral dimension to its behavior ?

Might Alkhaled express scorn for Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel? That nation shares a border with Syria and, thanks to the United States, is a major military power. Does Netanyahu have any concern about the security of his neighbor’s citizens? Why didn’t he think it appropriate to intervene in Syria?

Alkhaled, who has an envious position being a manager of a Syrian advocacy group, can be critical of decisions he does not like. But not being a head of state like Obama, he will never decide whether to take a nation to war and face the consequences of that decision .

Frank Ferrone, El Cajon

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook