President Trump may not be favorable with Democrats and several world leaders alike, but most can agree the airstrikes in Syria were justified…
Yesterday, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles in response to a gas attack in Syria that appears to have been carried out by the Assad regime. The American missiles hit the Shayrat airbase near Homs, which is believed to have been the staging ground for the chemical attacks. Already, President Trump is coming under fire for the unilateral missile strikes. As someone who has been opposed to President Trump on many issues, and was vehemently against the invasion of Iraq, I believe that President Trump sent the right message by launching the missile strikes.
Two issues are likely at play. First, the Russian government almost certainly knew about the chemical weapons attacks. It’s even possible that the Russian government ordered or encouraged the Assad regime to use chemical weapons. Second, whoever the ultimate decision-maker was, he was almost certainly trying to test the Trump administration and determine if they would turn a blind eye to chemical attacks.
Another question many have been wondering is exactly how cozy Trump is with the Russian government. We know many of Trump’s aid’s, or former aids, have connections to the Russian regime. How close the President himself is, however, is more difficult to discern. Would the President tolerate a more forceful and exertive Russia? The answer appears to be no.
The Russian regime has already roundly denounced the missile strikes. The Russian government has been far slower to condemn the Syrian government for its chemical weapons strike. Instead, the Russian government has argued that A) the attack was faked, and B) the gas leak was caused by the Assad regime bombing a rebel-controlled chemical weapons lab. Numerous global experts have stepped forward to renounce the attacks.
The message Trump sent by launching air strikes is clear: the United States will not tolerate the use of illegal WMD’s, and the administration is not beholden to Russia or its interests. This is a stark break from the Obama administration, which tolerated far larger Syrian chemical weapons attacks with little more than a whimper.
Compared to the more polarizing views regarding former President Obama, a lot of people loved him, a lot of people hated him, I find myself in more of a middle ground. He made some choices I agreed with, and other choices I disagreed with. One of Obama’s worst mistakes was to declare a “red line”, stating that if the Assad regime used chemical weapons the United States would get more directly involved in the Syrian war, then failing to follow through when that line was crossed. On August 21st of 2013, just one year after Obama declared a red line, the Assad regime launched a chemical weapons strike near Damascus that killed 1,400 people.
The red line was obviously crossed right? How could America stand by idly as a regime was using WMDs on its own civilians? And how could America, the world’s pre-eminent military power make a threat and not follow through on it? Unfortunately, this is exactly what happened. Obama punted military authorization to Congress, where both Democrats and Republicans were hesitant to offer support. Meanwhile, Russia moved aggressively to hammer out a peace deal to prevent American involvement. Supposedly, part of that deal was to require Syria to destroy all of its chemical weapons. It’s clear now that no such destruction occurred.
With President Trump, however, there will be red lines, and when it comes to WMDs such red lines seem not only appropriate but necessary. And while I may disagree with President Trump on a great many other issues, the air strikes appear to have been a prudent move.
Brian Brinker is an OpsLens Contributor and political consultant. Brinker has an M.A in Global Affairs from American University.
