How could the United States have intervened in Syria?

How could the United States have intervened in Syria?

Regarding Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) Dec. 23 op-ed “Our empty ‘witness’ in Syria”:

I am disappointed that Mr. McCain provided no policy options for U.S. action in Syria, instead saying that the United States should do something.

The war in Syria is a tragedy that demands policymakers’ attention, but criticizing the Obama administration’s response without an examination of alternative policy options and the risks involved betrays a lack of serious thinking about the United States’ stake in Syria. Should the United States deploy ground forces to Syria? Should we do so in the absence of a U.N. resolution? Should the United States engage Russian and Syrian air defenses to implement a no-fly zone? It is disappointing that Mr. McCain seems unwilling to address these questions after close to six years of conflict.

It is also disappointing that Mr. McCain addresses violence in Syria but has not taken an equally strong stance on violence in the United States. Approximately 180,000 Americans have been killed from gun-related violence, and hundreds of thousands more injured, in the United States since the crisis in Syria started, far outpacing the threat from Islamic State-inspired terrorists. I hope Mr. McCain can find some time to lend his stature to advocating for gun control that can start to reduce this terrible statistic while making sure the next San Bernardino-style attack is not enabled by easy access to firearms.

Nicholas Reinhold, New York

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is rightly appalled at the carnage and suffering in Aleppo, Syria, inflicted by the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad aided by Russia and Iran. If their targeting of hospitals and civilians does not constitute a war crime, then the phrase has little meaning. Mr. McCain does not mention our efforts at arming the anti-government rebels in this civil war, but that oversight is excusable because that approach was only calculated to prolong the war, not to end it.

But Mr. McCain failed to provide a military strategy, or even a concept, that has any chance of working in a theater with multiple combatants, virtually none of whom are aligned with our interests. Should we send in ground troops to fight multiple radical Islamist terrorist groups, the Islamic State, the Syrian government, Russia and Iran? If we invade, what is our definition of success and when can we leave? We are currently bombing the Islamic State in Syria; should we redirect our firepower to the Syrian and Russian militaries? To be clear, that would constitute an act of war.

The current administration and the American people are painfully aware of the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. What is Mr. McCain’s military solution?

Michael Curry, Austin

Charles Krauthammer is at it again. Rather than condemning President Obama for his policies with regard to Syria, we should reward our president for what amounts to U.S. prudence in Aleppo [“Aleppo and American decline,” op-ed, Dec. 23]. Neoconservative-style intervention almost always costs more than wise discretion.

The only mistake Mr. Obama has made in Syria was drawing a so-called red line he could not enforce. Other than that, it is good that we did not get any more involved in the Syrian quagmire than we did.

I doubt the Russians, for all their efforts to intervene, will enjoy it much.

Panos Kakaviatos, Arlington