Opinions Mixed on U.S. Response to Syria at Congressman Larson's Forum

Opinions were split at the forum on Syria hosted by U.S. Rep. John Larson at West Hartford Town Hall Monday as to whether the United States should intervene militarily in the Middle Eastern country's civil war.

Last week, reports indicated that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against civilians, killing over 1,000 people, including 400 children.

President Barack Obama on Aug. 31 called on Congress to pass a resolution supporting an air strike against Syria’s ruling regime.

With the legislature set to reconvene on Sept. 9, Congressman Larson scheduled the two-hour Labor Day forum to hear what constituents had to say on the matter.

The majority of the people who attended the forum spoke against intervention. 

“It’s a Syrian problem, created in Syria and I feel Syria should solve it themselves,” said Canton resident Nancy Rose.

A number of people said they feared an air strike would lead to a larger-scale war.

“This is an immoral atrocity,” said Suzanne Hall of Avon. “But war is an immoral atrocity. What about the Sudan? Darfur? What about Saddam Hussein in the 1990s using chemical weapons against the Kurds? It will escalate.”

Several people called for other measures, such as sanctions and tough negotiations, to stop Assad from using chemical weapons again.

Debby Reelitz of Granby called on Larson for a four-point plan: 1. strong action in Syria, including a ceasefire and negotiations; 2. support for the refugees who have been pouring into Jordan; 3. aid and support for the Syrian civilians; 4. a strengthening of the global criminal court.

Another resident was more blunt.

“If killing 400 children with chemical weapons is reason for a war, then can we attack Union Carbide?” he asked.

Some called for the focus to be on helping people in the United States.

But others said that doing nothing would result in more chemical weapons attacks, as well as weaken the United State’s positions in other difficult situations in the world, including Iran and North Korea.

“If [the U.S.] does not do anything, then what is the answer to it?” asked one Syrian American. “There are no red lines that he won’t cross.”

No one advocated “boots on the ground” - a military response that called for a troop commitment in Syria. It’s an option that Larson has gone on record as opposing.

Debate in Congress will take place next week. Larson did not commit to a position, but he did appear to favor a strike if the rest of the world supported the measure.

The issue is several countries—notably Russia and China, to date—have declined to embrace such a response.

While Obama's decision to have Congress debate the measure has drawn criticism from some sectors, Larson said that the president is acting from a position of strength.

"I applaud him for that," Larson said.

How do you think the United States should respond to the situation in Syria?