The Trump Administrations Action was Appropriate. Here’s Why it’s Still Bad.

The administration’s dialogue on Syria is complicated.

Last night around 11pm the push notifications on my phone started going crazy. I didn’t really want to look at them, since I figured that maybe Donald had taken it upon himself to sign some random executive order in place of a late night snack. When I finally resolved to look, I was somewhat confused by what I was reading.

“U.S Missile strike on Syria”

Automatically, I was surprised. The action seemed off for an administration that was so heavy on “America first” anything and everything. While attacking Syria was actually the right way to go on the side of the United States considering the circumstances, it was at direct odds with all of Trump’s campaign dialogue and his administrations actions. From the rhetoric concerning American Muslim’s and ISIS to the travel ban restricting people from entering the United States (including Syria). Trump has been heavily focused on attacking ISIS, a group on the opposing side of the Assad regime. Becuase of this, Trump has spoken positively about wanting strong relationships with Russia (who supports the Syrian dictator), which is a policy that would be indirectly supporting Assad. When the Trump administration took office, I was thoroughly convinced that the Syrian civil war was over. Trump would support the human rights violations of the Assad regime in order to “stabilize the region”.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, the Trump administration decided that it was time to stand up to Assad and Russia.

This was best summarized by US Senator (D-NY) Kirsten Gillibrand on twitter:

Image for post
Image for post
Senator K Gillibrand’s responds to Trump administrations attacks

This action, which was unapproved by congress, was at direct odds with his stance just a couple of years ago when he tweeted in 2013:

Image for post
Image for post

Obviously it seems as though he’s had a change in opinion (one that I can actually agree with), but Senator Gillibrand was right when she said that it didn’t seem like there was a “long term plan.” This is a major statement by the United States that, while supported by many of our allies (see photo bellow from USA Today), it doesn’t seem to be strategic.

Image for post
Image for post
Created by USA Today. Is not my own.

Another reason why this is so striking (unintended pun) is becuase of the current allegations about the Trump administration and Russia. Not only is there an extremely complex government investigation going on, but there’s also significant evidence that something occurred between the two. As that moves forward and the investigation begins to pick up steam, this could complicated our actions with Russia even further. When this is considered, the administrations actions are even more strange. Starting world war 3 against a power that may/may not have tampered in elections to get you in office seems unintelligent.

Someone knows something the public clearly does not. What that is and how it will affect policy going forward is cause for concern.

Written by

Non-Fiction Books. Health Care. Politics. Inquires: kpoements@gmail.com, poements.com

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store