Has Barack Obama forgotten that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize soon after he was elected president? When he accepted it with humility as undeserved, wasn't he silently saying "not yet?" As senator, he had voted against the invasion of Iraq -- one of the few dissenters -- and that surely marked him as an anti-war protester and a leader for peace.
How can his position toward Syria's civil war not be deeply disturbing? He's proposing a military strike against Assad's regime, one that has killed its own people for more than a year. Though not previously by chemical weapons, the horrendous result has been the deaths of thousands.
The chemical method of killing humans has outraged the international community and "something needs to be done," most world leaders agree. Obama seems to feel the pressure is on him - and America - to deter and punish Assad. Isn't a military strike an act of war? Didn't Obama promise to keep us out of war? Does any thinking person believe there will be no military reprisals that will lead to even more destruction if Congress supports a strike? A regional war? World War III?
Isn't it ironic that some Republicans are ready to support - even urging support -- for our presidential leadership? Finally! And why?
Whatever action is taken, it cannot be about the creditability of our nation, nor of Obama. The focus must be about Middle East peace. Do we continue to accept the role of world police (as perceived because of our seemingly superior military power), or do we choose to be peace-makers who provide only humanitarian aid that does make a difference in outcome for people and their environment? Does it require more courage to stand for peace than it does to fight a war?
Something else I am pondering: what we have learned from our own Civil War 150 years ago and our non-violent March on Washington 50 years ago? We still continue, as a united people, to solve our differences without the aid of foreign intervention. Would we want it any other way?
Elizabeth Truesdale, Strasburg