Over the course of President Trump’s first few months in the oval office, many debacles have arisen; some were handled well, and some were absolute failures of the administration. That is expected of every president though, right? To make a few mistakes here and there concerning the safety and solitude of this great nation is quite the norm. That is the only way to get your feet wet, jumping straight into things that could potentially cause disaster to strike (like a possible ban against “foreign terrorists”). As a people, well, not a majority of people, we decided that Trump was the best fit for this nation. He’s a businessman and seems to run the country as such. The best thing he has come to do is bomb Syria, and although many people are labeling it an “act of aggression” and saying that he is by far too “short-sighted,” I believe that he did the only thing he felt could be done, and that’s all that can be asked for the president to do…right?
On April 6th of this year, Donald Trump ordered a military strike on a Syrian government airbase due to their President Bashar al-Assad’s act of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (Starr). Using chemical weapons on one’s own people is punishable by government intervention, which is exactly why President Trump did what he did. In justifying his actions Trump stated that “it is dire to the national security of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons” (Starr). Many people seemed to have a problem with him altering this turn of events back to the U.S., but is that not the point? To protect this country, the civility and rights of other countries around the world must be stable as well. Even though the United States never interfered with President Assad bombing and gunning down his very own civilians, gassing them was stooping to an entirely unheard of level of low. With being the most powerful nation in the world comes many responsibilities; keeping Syria in check was purely protocol.
The attack on Syria was never meant to kill or harm anyone; since when are approximately fifty tomahawk missiles dangerous, anyways? Yes, the act of superiority did result in several casualties but this was never Trump’s intent. The strike was meant to destroy the airbase early in the morning when commotion and activity would be at a minimum. This, in fact, was successful; reports showed that “it targeted aircraft, aircraft shelters, petroleum, and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems” and many other airfield appliances which were used to distribute the toxic chemicals used on two nearby villages (Starr). It was also found that one of Syria’s biggest allies, Russia, was warned of the airstrike hours before the incident, as to prevent any sudden retaliation against the U.S. Russia had also previously attempted to reason with President Assad, requesting that he “ceasefire and not to gas his people” (Smith-Spark). This once again proving that Trump was never attempting to send us into another world war or to harm anyone, but merely adhering to the morality of the Chemical Weapons Convention and provide justice for the Syrian people (Starr).
In recent news, Donald Trump’s reasoning for this sudden attack was questioned. Many have said that the source of this act came from none other than the President’s own daughter, Ivanka Trump. Now how can this possibly have stimulated the bombing of a country that the U.S. is already in a civil war with? The President has put the entire scandal to bed, labeling it a hoax as the reasoning for his actions purely came from his own distraught and sadness seeing the few people affected from the poisons inflicted on them by Assad. It didn’t stop there; Trump’s ethics were brought into question as well. During former President Barack Obama’s two terms in office, a “red line” memo was put into writing stating that if Syria were to ever violate this said line, the U.S. would launch an airstrike on the terrorist group ISIS. A tweet, Trump’s main forum for relaying important information, said not to bomb them, that it would do much more harm to us than good. “President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your ‘powder’ for another (and more important) day!” (Savage). Going back on his word caused a mass confusion for many supporters, and ultimately weakened his stance on bombing Syria. Yet he remained with his position and summed up his change of stance to the fact that times have changed, that he did not know then what he knows now.
The Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, discusses how President Trump’s actions were justified, even when they acted without approval from neither Congress nor the United Nations Security Council (Savage). Acts of war don’t exactly have to be approved in certain cases, and obviously, the President saw this to be one of those few incidences. Why else would he be allowed to send fifty-nine missiles to a foreign country with nobody’s consent but his own? He was protecting the U.S. of course. He was said to have been working within a loophole in the War Powers Resolution; used by many past presidents when in times of dire distress. This said loophole states that it requires a president to “terminate deployments after sixty days if they lack authorization” (Savage). Basically, saying that one-time attacks are allowed, and sure, Congress warned him against “unilaterally starting a war” without speaking to them initially, but Assad had to be stopped immediately. In the end, the strike did not harm the United States nor did it help Syria, so no harm no foul.
Did the attack, in fact, leave the United States unscathed? President Trump stated that with being the strongest country in the world, there will always be people that would like to strip that power away, so dominance must be displayed to prevent that. Multiple people disagreed with this since most terrorists or “power seekers” that come to this country do not wait until it shows signs of weakness. Also, pointing out that bombing another country without the consent of one’s own government authorities is borderline illegal (Waldman). Another important fact pointed out by Syrian officials, is that villages and towns within the country have been plagued with many, many more deaths due to “bombs and guns” than they have with chemical gas. So, although chemicals are in fact deadly, they are the least of their concerns. Trump may not understand this, but he does know that chemical weapons are super bad; therefore, they must be stopped immediately. At the end of the day, Trump may not have made a big difference for the Syrian people, he may have just caused bigger problems for this country, but hey, at least he got to show them who wears the pants in this relationship.
Starr, Barbara, and Jeremy Diamond. “Trump Launches Military Strike against Syria.” CNN, Cable News Network, 7 Apr. 2017. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Rozsa, Matthew. “Eric Trump: Donald Trump Bombed Syria Because Ivanka Told Him To.” Salon, Salon, 11 Apr. 2017. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Waldman, Paul. “Six Questions about Trump’s Missile Attack in Syria.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 10 Apr. 2017. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Smith-Spark, Laura, and Barbara Starr. “US Investigates Possible Russia Role in Syria Chemical Attack.” CNN, Cable News Network, 8 Apr. 2017. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.
Savage, Charlie. “Was Trump’s Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining Presidential War Powers.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Apr. 2017. Accessed 12 Apr. 2017.