Professor Michael McFaul, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, In your commentary, above captioned, appearing in the op-ed page of the New York Times of October 23, you view with dim regard Russia's intervention in Syria on behalf of its ally, the government of Bashar al Assad, advising us that the US must "adopt a comprehensive strategy to minimize the negative consequences of Russia's actions and maximize the positive ones of ours." This and your other comments I find curiously simplistic and devoid of any observation or appreciation of reality in the Middle East for the past 14 years. Over the past 14 years, the United States, under the presidencies of George Bush and Barack Obama, has pursued policies of naked aggression in the Middle East, attacking and invading countries in the region, seeking by regime change and nation building to remake the region according to American ideals. As the direct consequences thereof, the region has been turned into a firestorm of tribal and religious warfare which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners, destroyed their homes, cities and infrastructure, unleashed on the local populations innumerable terrorists whose primary task is to kill and destroy, virtually wiped out the native Christian churches evangelized by the Apostles, launched into flight throughout the region and into Europe millions of hapless refugees seeking to escape, let alone what America's Era of Endless War has cost us in human casualties in the thousands and in material resources mounting into the trillions of dollars. In your commentary you predict with prophetic assurance that Putin's foreign adventures will fail, that we should seek to shorten that time by pushing back against Russia on multiple fronts and that we must provide more arms and support to other rebel groups and warn Putin that further attacks against non-Islamic State rebels will compel the US to defend them. All of what you recommend fails to recognize that Russia is a nuclear-armed power with potential to deliver such weapons, that Russia is highly unlikely to suffer being pushed around by a bellicose America, that America is neither the world's policeman nor the great messiah with tidings of great joy for all the benighted peoples of the world and last but not least, that America is no longer has the power nor the will to impose its purposes on all others. What you propose, Professor McFaul, is the provocation for the Third World War, one which I would hope that our decision-makers seek to avoid at all costs. Neither Syria nor the entire Middle East, given our experience over the past 14 years, are worth the life of a single GI nor the expenditure of a single dollar. By Robert Schwind