Trump Strikes Again! This Time With Military Force.
The Basics
This past Tuesday, the Syrian government led by President Bashar al-Assad conducted one of the worst chemical bombings in Syria’s history. The bombing turned the northern rebel area into a toxic deadly zone. Thus, international disappointment was incited.
Many of the world leaders, including U.S. President Donald J. Trump, expressed shock and outrage when the initial reports about the chemical bombing were released. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who spoke about the chemical bombing at a news conference with Germany’s Foreign Secretary, stated “If this were to be proved to have been committed by the Assad regime then it would be another reason to think they are an absolutely heinous outfit, that is, it is a war crime.”
Naturally, these leaders immediately begin trying to find out more answers to determine what way was best to counter this situation. These leaders found that 70 people had died at the hands of the Syrian regime. Thus, the United Nations (UN) replaced their regularly scheduled Wednesday morning meeting with an emergency meeting on Syria.
Prior to the emergency meeting, the representatives for the United States [Ambassador Nikki Haley], United Kingdom [Ambassador Matthew Rycroft], and France [Ambassador Fraçois Delattre] circulated a resolution to the Security Council on the attack. It was supposed to be voted on last week but that did not happen because some countries, including Russia, expressed opposition to the resolution.
Thus, President Donald J. Trump did exactly what Ambassador Nikki Haley said we would do “act alone.” On Thursday, President Donald Trump ordered a mass airstrike in Syria and thus, subsequently responded through his military.
The Reflection
I have mixed feelings after the U.S. raid against the Syrian regime through missile strikes. First and foremost, I am appalled at the fact that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would use chemical gas to attack his own people and therefore, think that some type of action should have occurred to warn the Syrian people that the United States, our allies, and other counterparts in the fight against terrorism would not, continuously, react without our military if these chemical bombings or other actions continued.
However, I do not think that military action was the appropriate solution. If President Trump would have waited a few more days, the United Nations may have been able to reach an agreement on the resolution that the Ambassadors from the United States, United Kingdom, and France had originally proposed to be voted on last week.
Through a number of behind-the-scence negotiations, many of the countries that were opposed to the resolution in its original form sent out counter-resolutions that proposed a course of action, on Syria, that they would likely support. This led to the United States, France, and the United Kingdom redrafting their original resolution with the hopes of pleasing those that were once opposed.
Thus, I have came to the conclusion that President Trump’s military strikes may have been premature. Many people who have worked in the foreign affairs arena understand that a lot of the work goes on behind-the-scences and that you cannot rush to conclusions when a state [a country] makes an initial statement of opposition or support on an issue because those initial positions can change through negotiations. However, President Trump, Secretary of State Tillerson, and UN Ambassador Haley did not know this so they stopped all diplomatic efforts when they had a momentary halt and went for a military option.
Additionally, I am less inclined to support the military strikes because I believe that President Trump made the decision to execute an airstrike with little to no information on the subject at all. Although there is evidence of President Trump holding and attending National Security Council [NSC] meetings it is not possible for the NSC, and its employees, to have enough information two days after the chemical bombing for Trump to definitively state that the Syrian government conducted the chemical bombing and thus, is the sole responsible party whom the US needs to attack.
Moreover, I do not believe that Trump could have made a decision off of national security advice because there is a report out that says that Ivanka Trump swayed the president’s decision heavily. Clearly, seeking Ivanka’s opinion on taking military action in Syria proves that President Trump cares about how people feel and reacts to people, normally his family and close friends, opinion’s and feelings more than the general will and consensus of the American people and/or military. If you were making a decision based of what was in the best interest of Americans and the American military, why would you ask your daughter for her input over the input of those whose job it is to work for the American people and American military to provide you assistance in these type of matters?
All-in-all, President Donald J. Trump is a war hawk. He just wants to fight everybody for everything and act like we won’t be headed for WWIII. His decisions will affect future generations. However, we know he probably won’t change his mindset because he doesn’t, truly, care about us. He is letting anybody run this government and influence his decisions. So, the real question is not was this a good or bad decision but who made this decision? Who is running this Government?
Born in Baltimore, M.D., Braxton Gregory Becoats is a senior History major and English minor at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia. He has held various leadership roles on campus, such as a Senator in the Student Government Association, Social Justice Chairman in the Martin Luther King, Jr. International Chapel, and Chairman of the Student Welfare and Concerns and Constitution and Bylaws Committees in the Student Government Association.
