Local residents have mixed feelings about whether the United States should use military force in Syria in response to allegations that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens.
On one hand, residents can’t ignore disturbing reports that some 1,400 innocent civilians were gassed to death.
On the other, residents are tired of fighting wars in the Middle East that seem to have no end.
Syria will be the main topic of discussion this week in Washington, D.C., as Congress reconvenes and President Barack Obama tries to drum up enough support to authorize a military strike. The president is expected to make his case to the American public by appearing on a spectrum of major television networks today and making a national address Tuesday night.
Proponents say the Syrian government crossed a “red line” when it used chemical weapons. The international community must condemn that kind of behavior, they say. A military strike would send a message to other countries such as Iran that America won’t tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction. America is best poised to lead the military offense, they say. In addition to upholding international norms, it is morally the right thing to do.
Opponents say the civil war in Syria does not pose an immediate security risk to America.
They worry that toppling Syrian President’s Bashar Assad’s government could open the door to rebels and al-Qaida fighters who have equally bad or worse intentions. They questioned the outcome, or “Day 4,” of a limited military strike. U.S. military involvement could take the focus off Syrian President Bashar Assad and place it on America, they say. America is already trillions of dollars in debt, and it doesn’t need to be fighting another war.
Most Americans are opposed to military action in Syria, and a random sampling of Durango-area residents reflects a similar trend.
The Durango Herald asked a dozen residents Sunday, “Do you support a U.S. military strike in Syria?” Here are their answers:
Brian O’Donnell, 43, of Durango:
“I think someone who uses chemical weapons on their own people, there has to be some response. A military response is the best of the bad options that exist.”
Shilah Allen, 23, of Durango
“During the past 1½ years there have been over 100,000 people that have been murdered, and it took this long for the U.S. government to actually try to take action. If they were willing to ignore that for that long, I don’t see what the difference is now just because it is children.”
Tom McCarl, 60, of Durango
“We’re not even finished with the wars we’re in now. Why start another one?”
Dean Pursley, 70, of Vallecito
“I don’t know for sure. Probably, no. I don’t know why. I think it might cause more problems than solutions.”
Matthew Cranston, 26, of Durango
“Hell no. It’s a boondoggle. We don’t need to be over there in the first place. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I didn’t really feel any need to be over there at the time. Most people don’t feel we need to be over there fighting other people’s wars. We have a responsibility to us first, and they have a responsibility to themselves, as well.”
Jeannie Aisenbrey, 62, of Durango
“The top military guy can’t even tell you the objective. That’s kind of bad. There’s no end to it. We’ve given them all these warnings, so I’m sure they’ve moved all their stuff that we say we’re going to attack. If we hit those targets there’s probably nothing left to hit. Who knows what Iran and Russia will do after we attack? They could attack Israel out of spite. It’s a tinderbox.”
Cat McClure, 55, of Durango
“That’s a so-iffy thing. I think they should, really, truly, because of what they did to those children. What they did was bad. What they did was horrid. Uncalled for. However, I think it needs to be done legally, realistically and diplomatically.”
Gary Johnson, 57, Hesperus
“No. There’s a lot of reasons. Financial, as far as (our) country is concerned. The rebels are being backed by al-Qaida. Neither side likes us. I don’t see where there’s going to be a positive outcome. They already know we’re planning an attack. They’re going to move all their assets. Where we thought they were going to be, they’re not going to be there. And it goes on and on and on.”
Debbie Egger, 57, of Durango
“I’m such an emotional person, that’s a hard question for me to answer. I just am not a true believer in war at all. Just for the sake of all of us, humanity, it doesn’t make any difference who they are, who we are. I’m one of those that will sit and watch it on TV, and the tears will just stream.”
Steve Frost, 57, Durango
“Yes. If you don’t do anything at all, you’re going to set a precedent for other countries to use chemical weapons.”
Tyler Brickle, 21, of Durango
“I definitely don’t. We should be (using) our resources on other things, such as poverty and health care, and having such a large military probably isn’t the best thing. Other countries get by just fine without being the world’s police, so why can’t we take that example. We lead by example, but why can’t we take other people’s examples?”
Ian Bragdon, 18 of Durango
“I think so, even though it’s not really our fight to be a part of. How can you sleep at night when that stuff is happening and we’re not doing anything about it? It’s hard to answer. There’s no right answer.”
