U.S. should stay out of Syria

As America faces the prospect of warring in Syria, we need to first ask "What's in it for us?" In Iraq, the United States sacrificed thousands of American lives on the doubtful claim of weapons of mass destruction. Despite the extraordinary efforts of our troops, both countries still suffer from the invasion.

President Obama claimed he would intervene in Syria should Assad use chemical weapons. Assad's involvement is a fact that is openly debated. President Obama should rethink his stated conditional commitment for the sake of our own nation.

Sometimes we all have to eat crow for the greater good. Unfortunately, Republican critics are using this circumstance to paint him as a warmonger and indecisive foreign policy leader for political purposes.

Going back on commitments is not new for presidents. Kennedy abandoned Cuban freedom fighters after the Bay of Pigs invasion. Reagan withdrew our peacekeeping forces from Lebanon when the Marine barracks were bombed. George Bush Sr. refused to provide military support to Shiite Iraqi rebels (after an implied promise) when they rebelled against Saddam Hussein in 1991. Bill Clinton withdrew from Somalia after Black Hawk Down. During their tenures, we were still the most respected nation in the world.

When deciding on war, politicians should ask: "Is this effort so critical to our nation that I will take my own adult child to the recruiter to enlist?"

Senators Blunt and McCaskill, as well as Rep. Jason Smith, should oppose any American effort in the Syrian civil war.

LARRY BILL, Jackson