Two myths and an omission infest much of the coverage of the Syrian government’s sarin gas attack on Khan Sheikhoun last Tuesday and President Trump’s kneejerk response (Editorial, 8 April). The omission is the blatant illegality of the US missile strikes, done neither in self-defence nor with UN authority. That Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons was a shocking war crime can’t justify such a breach of international law – another war crime – in response.

The first myth is that in 2013 the UK parliament voted against participation in a military response to Assad’s chemical weapon attack on Syrian rebels and that this influenced Obama against a US military attack. In fact parliament merely rejected both Labour’s and the government’s proposed lists of criteria for a justified air strike against Syria, but Mr Cameron chose to interpret the votes as a rejection of military action, period.

Myth No 2: that in the face of Assad’s 2013 chemical weapons attack, Barack Obama weakly preferred inaction to a military response. In reality he chose diplomacy over the use of more violence, activating a long gestated agreement with Vladimir Putin, imposed on a reluctant Assad by Russia, under which UN weapons inspectors would identify and destroy Assad’s chemical weapons capability. Either that operation was incomplete or else chemical weapons have been reintroduced since the UN operation, with or without Russia’s knowledge. But that doesn’t affect the fact that Obama’s response – collaborating with Russia in a limited international peaceful solution – far from being weak or inactive, was infinitely preferable to Trump’s, which killed a few more people but otherwise seems likely to achieve nothing. For once Jeremy Corbyn is absolutely right.

Brian Barder

London

• One could attempt to fathom this latest action if it were part of a coherent foreign policy. But this attack was ordered by a president who has, in the past, discouraged any action in Syria (via Twitter), has sought to alienate the population from this part of the world by trying to introduce a ban on immigration from a string of Muslim-majority nations, and who has actively worked to prevent the US from offering refuge to the children of the conflict whose desperate plight he is now so moved by.

Donald Trump is a consummate deflector, and this latest action should be seen as an attempt to appear decisive where indecision has reigned, to contrast himself with Barack Obama and to ensure that America’s gaze is diverted from his many domestic woes. This is Trump’s “Falklands moment”, and it is disappointing to observe so many level-headed western politicians provide a cacophony of support for this action.

Samir Shah

Tutshill, Gloucestershire

• I disagree with Moustafa Bayoumi (Trump’s senseless Syria strikes accomplish nothing, theguardian.com, 7 April). Air power is Assad’s strongest suit. The cruise missile attacks may not remove the Syrian dictator from office, but they will certainly make him think twice before unleashing chemical weapons on his own people. It’s the first sensible thing Trump has done since becoming president.

Stan Labovitch

Windsor, Berkshire

• Donald Trump was until now a cheerleader for the international community’s acquiescence in Assad’s war against his own population. He cannot evade sharing responsibility for the permission the world has effectively granted to the regime’s killing of almost half a million people and displacement of millions more.

But Syrian opponents of the regime across the world have welcomed the US missile strike against Shayrat airfield as a precise and limited response to the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun. An action like this is the only way to slow down the killing, protect civilians and push the Assad regime towards the conference table. Had this happened in 2013, when the regime was at its weakest, it may have saved tens of thousands of lives.

We hope this will be the first step towards a new resolve on the part of the international community to protect civilians and bring peace to Syria. We are no fans of the Trump presidency, are as suspicious of his motives as anybody and would only support actions that are similarly proportionate. But very many people across Idlib, other parts of Syria and throughout the Syrian diaspora now have some hope. It is impossible not to stand with them.

Malcolm Allen, Zan Baa, Kellie Strøm, Clara Connolly, Bronwen Griff

Syria Solidarity UK, London

• Our media and politicians have reported as established fact the responsibility of the Syrian regime for the use of sarin in Idlib. They have created an atmosphere where anyone who, however dispassionately, asks for evidence of that – or even suggests that the militias on the ground are al-Qaida affiliated and that both al-Qaida and western intelligence agencies have been known to lie and worse – is an apologist for the killing of children. Likewise if we ask who the people are whom the UK and US want to install in Syria.

It was in just such a febrile context that we allowed our leaders to destroy the states of Iraq and Libya. But this time the war drum is beating against another world power.

Peter McKenna

Liverpool

• In September 2005 representatives of more than 170 countries met at UN headquarters in New York at what was called the World Summit, designed, among other things, to establish the principle of the “responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. Individual states have such responsibility, as does the international community.

On 14 September 2006 George Clooney addressed the UN security council on Darfur and the Sudan government’s refusal to comply with Resolution 1706. Clooney pulled no punches, saying: “You will simply need men with shovels and bleached white linen and headstones. In many ways, it’s unfair, but it is, nevertheless, true that this genocide will be on your watch. How you deal with it will be your legacy, your Rwanda, your Cambodia, your Auschwitz.” However, as Alex de Waal pointed out in 2007, the responsibility to protect was not exercised in Darfur.

As for Syria, yes, Jonathan Freedland (First thoughts, theguardian.com, 5 April) must be right to remind us that the dead and maimed of Khan Sheikhoun “force us to see that inaction can exact a terrible price”.

As the philosopher Cécile Fabre has pointed out, civil war does not necessarily lead to genocide, but history certainly tells us that civil wars are often the bloodiest and the most difficult conflicts from which to recover, if recovery be possible at all. Responsibility to protect? How? When? Where? And on whose watch? Despair is hard to resist.

Bruce Ross-Smith

Oxford

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters