No dog.

Editor,

Imagine that the two American journalists were not beheaded. On video no less. And yes, they were. And their murders are, I am told, horrible to behold. (No way am I going to allow such images into my mind and thus my dreams.)

But if they hadn't been, would the American people be so eager for yet more war in the Middle East?

My own personal pet peeve about the president's speech is: what about the Palestinians? The USA is valiantly preventing certain minorities from being driven from their ancestral lands. OK. Where has the USA been for the last 50, 60, or 70 years when it comes to Palestinians being driven from their lands?

I know. The rockets, the rockets, the rockets. Another context-free argument for another day.

According to the speech, the USA now is going to replicate in Syria the disaster in Somalia and Yemen. And Goldilocks fighters the USA has been looking for for the last three years -- fierce enough to defeat IS, yet friendly to the USA -- are going to materialize all of a sudden. Where have these fighters been for all these years?

I ask my original question again: If not for the absolutely horrible and absolutely horrifying murders of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, would a rational administration and an informed American public want more war in the Middle East?

Military planners always imagine the worst possible scenario, and that is the future it is argued bombs and missiles will prevent. These scenarios are paranoid fantasies at worst, gross exaggerations at best.

There are dozens of armed groups fighting in Iraq and Syria. Allegiances are changing constantly. IS supporters today will be fighting them to the death tomorrow. Aside from the free flow of Middle East oil, the USA has no dog in this fight.

Re: "The Attack on ISIS Expands to Syria " (9/11/2014)