Action against Syria still leaves its long-term stability unresolved

sir – William Hague (Comment, April 10) offers four possible arguments against the use of force in Syria in response to a chemical weapon attack.

In 2013 I encouraged my MP (and he agreed with me) to vote against the use of air strikes at that time. My reasons were none of the four listed by Lord Hague. The point was, and still is, that the issues are not as straightforward as we would like them to be.

In 2013, the main reason for voting against air strikes was that many minorities in Syria – including the Christian population – had largely felt safe under President Bashar al-assad, but were very afraid of the range of Islamic groups that threatened to replace him should he be toppled from power. Since then, things have changed. Isil has brought terror to all who dare to disagree with them, and Russia has become significantly involved in supporting Assad.

There is no doubt that both Assad and his supporters, not least Russia, have to be shown that their conduct is entirely unacceptable, but we should be concentrating on a long-term solution, which would offer all groups in Syria a safe future. The immediate use of some kind of significant force should not be ruled out, but whatever is done should be carried out with the ultimate long-term solution in mind. Michael Sparrow

Marple, Cheshire

sir – It seems that Syria and Russia are to be punished for murdering innocent civilians in the wrong way. Robin Steggles

Holbrook, Suffolk

sir – Your leading article (April 9) makes the point that in 2013 the West, in particular America, did not act decisively to punish President Assad for carrying out a previous gas attack.

The response to a subsequent gas attack, amounting to the firing of a number of cruise missiles at an air force base, was not impressive. It is a pity that America and its allies did not mount a major attack in 2013 to neutralise the Syrian air defences and then destroy the Syrian air force, including its helicopters in the air and on the ground.

Sadly, now that Russia is supporting President Assad militarily, and both leaders deny the use of chemical weapons, there is little hope of preventing their use and bringing those who use them to justice. John Macgillivray

Dundee

sir – Bold talk of a military intervention is misguided. Syria is a nation state and has not transgressed its borders. All possible options are fraught with collateral implications.

If the Western world is really determined to do something, then the brutal isolation of Syria from any form of engagement with the world beyond its borders would go a long way to making Assad’s regime unsustainable. Russia’s Vladimir Putin would also be made to declare his hand or acquiesce to non-military action. Charles Holden

Micheldever, Hampshire