IN REPLY to your comment about military action in Syria, it is a worthy sentiment, but too late to implement. It seems to me that those for military action are witholding pertinent information from us to be able make an informed decision.

My analysis is that the Syrian regime will have long vacated their operations and control centres and gone elsewhere, probably to the suburbs surrounded by the civilian population. If the US destroy the operations and control centres, it will be a very expensive wrecking ball and who knows what kind of displaced persons might be in occupation?

There remains the airfields and aircraft: the aircraft will probably be removed to safety by now, the airfields present a prime target, but the regime has helicopters.

If the airfields are destroyed, where will the UN relief heavy lift aircraft be able to land? The US will probably deploy their construction battalions to repair the very airfields destroyed by their action.

The civilian population trying to get on with their daily business will suffer many casualties and death, no matter how accurate the cruise missiles are: there are always unintended consequences to such a bombardment.

There has been comment about destroying Syria’s chemical weapons by bombardment.

This will only result in releasing huge volumes of poisonous gas to travel where the prevailing winds dictate to towns, cities and across borders.

No matter which way you interpret the intended US et al. actions from a Middle Eastern perspective, it is an act of war against the Syrian regime favouring the opposition forces which have in their ranks implacable enemies of the US, namely Al-Qaeda.

What will happen after the bombardment of cruise missiles on Syria?

I do not think it will signal the end of death and destruction in Syria: each side is fighting for its very existing and foreign interference by cruise missile bombardment will have no effect at all.

RICHARD NORDBERG

Manorbier