We have all watched, in horror, the news of the use of sarin gas in an attack on innocent civilians in Syria. However, it would be as morally reprehensible for us to respond militarily to this act as it was for this attack to be perpetrated in the first place.
I ask that you consider an alternative – a massive humanitarian aid campaign to the people most affected by the horrors of this civil war.
This campaign would entail efforts by governments and non-profits to airlift medical supplies, food, tents, blankets, gas masks and other supplies to the places most in need of these vital provisions, including the refugee camps, Damascus and other areas in Syria hard hit by this civil war.
This campaign would require a joint effort of the U.S., its allies, the U.N. and various non-profit organizations such as Doctors without Borders and the International Red Cross. Military forces could be enlisted to do the actual delivery of these necessary supplies.
I can understand that military strikes would constitute a “just war” response. However, Stanley Hauerwas, professor emeritus of theological ethics at Duke Divinity School (HuffPost Religion, Aug. 30) says, on “just war tradition,” “Legitimate and competent authorities must logically argue that the use of force will end or limit the suffering of a people and these forceful actions are the last options after all diplomatic, social, political, and economic measures have been exhausted.”
Military strikes to punish the Assad regime for this chemical weapons attack on his own people will not “end or limit the suffering of a people” nor are they “the last options after all diplomatic, social, political and economic measures have been exhausted.”
CYNTHIA ORBAN Fort Wayne