By Zack Downing, Staff Writer
It goes without saying that Donald Trump’s first months in office have come with a lot of bad decisions. Every once in a while, a smart choice is made, but America is generally unhappy with the way his administration has progressed.
On Thursday, April 6, however, the U.S. military retaliated against Syria by sending missiles to strike the military airfields of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
The missile launch was considered a success among supporters after landing accurately and critically damaging the base.
The decision was made following a horrific chemical attack on Syrian citizens, which killed more than 70 and wounded dozens more.
Despite al-Assad’s denial, it is strongly believed that his regime was responsible, as they have been before for such lethal attacks.
The Syrian Civil War has been the subject of debate in the United States, specifically over whether to intervene or to take the isolationist approach.
What’s interesting about the Syrian involvement argument is that it isn’t a partisan topic; important figures on both sides disagree.
John McCain and Marco Rubio support the airstrikes, while Ted Cruz and Rand Paul still express opposition to Syrian intervention.
This also may be one of the only examples we ever see of Trump’s policies aligning with Barack Obama’s, since the former president also launched airstrikes against enemy forces in Syria. Hillary Clinton is another supporter of Syrian intervention, according to her campaign promises.
Trump’s drive to bomb Assad’s military forces isn’t unique among politicians, but does that mean the plan is a good idea? Should we involve ourselves in the Syrian Civil War and risk retaliation?
Given the recent chemical attack, I think the choice to bomb the enemy air force base was smart and necessary.
It’s true that America should be tentative when deciding to involve themselves in foreign wars, but there are certainly lines that, when crossed, demand outside help.
Civil wars don’t often reach a large enough scale to warrant the attention of powerful nations, but the Syrian Civil War has been at a crisis level for far too long for the United States to avert its eyes any longer.
The chemical attack proved that the Assad regime is willing to exact crimes against humanity to further their agenda, and that was the final straw for the Trump administration to launch the missiles.
Many claim the bombing was an unnecessary act of warmongering and too aggressive for the situation at hand.
I wonder, how much more would be required before our country steps in? We watched footage of dozens of people choking to death on gas, and some think the Assad regime still didn’t deserve to have a base destroyed.
It took the United States until they were personally attacked to get involved in the second World War, and their late-December entry is considered by many to be far too late.
The Syrian Civil War won’t reach WWII levels, but it does serve as an example of what the United States can do to help and when they should intervene.
Obviously, the hope is that the Syrian Civil War doesn’t grow into a multinational battle, but that’s a risk the Trump administration is willing to take when it comes to sending a message to the enemy and potentially saving the lives of hundreds of Syrian citizens.
I think the bombing was a smart move, and a strong message to send in the midst of a struggling presidency. If you support the airstrike but you’re troubled that you agree with Donald Trump, take solace in the fact that Obama may very well have done the same thing.