letters | stakes raised in syria

Where was Obama as thousands died by conventional weapons?

If the Obama administration proceeds with military action against the government of Syria, it will not be a stance against the killing of civilians. Instead, it will be a move by President Obama to pick and choose among the methods by which the Syrian government kills civilians.

The war has lasted for more than two years, during which time more than 100,000 people have been slaughtered. Where was the Obama administration’s determination to act earlier? Why dive into another foreign military intervention simply because Syria has chosen to use chemical weapons? Why has it not been objectionable to allow the killing of one or 10 at a time through the use of bullets and bombs?


If Obama were to succeed in preventing the future use of chemical weapons in Syria but not to stop the slaughter of civilians by other means, what will have been accomplished?

Daniel Levenson


Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com