Scott Patrick Brand, West Fargo
This week our elected officials in Congress are debating U.S. military action in Syria. While I applaud the president for actually consulting Congress on this matter and openly admit I do not have the same information they do, I cannot support unilateral U.S. intervention in this tragic affair. My heart pours for those in Syria, just like it pours for those in North Korea, Somalia, Iran, etc. But if the allegations of the Syrian regime are true, and I trust that they are, then the proper response should come from the global community (e.g., the U.N. or, at least, a coalition of some kind).
It seems less than clear who the "Syrian rebels" are and what they will do in the event of a regime change. We also cannot guarantee that unilateral U.S. involvement will somehow stop the current regime from further using chemical weapons. Such unknowns should heavily dissuade the U.S. from direct intervention at this point in time. Further, as an OIF Veteran, my heart pains thinking about this conflict's potential to drag our young men and women into another war without a clear exit strategy. The U.S. suffered severe damage to its worldwide credibility, decimated its fiscal resources, and compromised its national security when it previously took unilateral action in other areas of the world. We have a significant population within our own borders struggling to make a living, a crumbling infrastructure, and a generation of future Americans who desperately need and deserve a quality education. The time is long overdue for this country to focus on making nation building from within a top priority.
For these, and many other reasons, I cannot support unilateral U.S. involvement in Syria at this point in time. I hope and pray the world community works to find a solution that involves shared participation and sacrifice, if it deems such action necessary. I plan on letting our congressional delegation know my humble opinion and respectfully urge you to do the same.