It was the moderator, Martha Raddatz, who made one of the best points in Sunday's presidential debate. One of her questions dealt with the crisis in Aleppo and in Syria, as she wondered if we are failing to act to save a people just like we failed to act in time to save people from the Holocaust.
If it shook no one else, it shook me. Are we? I wondered. Should we be doing something to save those people?
Our taste for war has been soured by the years we have spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. War is not popular with us just now. This is not our concern. We are not the world's policeman.
Or, are we? Or, should we be? If no one stands to defend these people, how many more will die or be run out of the country? You don't like taking them in as refugees? Then, one alternative is to fix their homeland.
I suppose I am not ready to say, Go all out in war. But, I think we should think about it. Would we just amp up the deaths of the populace? Would we just be opening the country to ISIS? Should we first go hard after ISIS, and then turn to go hard after Syria? Again, would our efforts only lead to more human suffering and death?
I heard a radio commentator suggest no one seems to have an answer as to what to do in Syria. I know I don't. But, I know the first step to having an answer is to consider the question. I don't think we are even doing that.