U.S. Missile Strike Sparks Conversation

One day after the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons on its own civilians shocked the world, US President Donald J. Trump spoke out against the Assad regime, placing blame on the Obama administration for allowing Assad to carry out “heinous” actions. The poisonous gas released from Assad’s warplanes — found to be sarin gas by Turkish officials — killed, paralyzed and mutilated around 87 civilians. Three days later, on April 7, Trump ordered a Tomahawk missile strike on the base where the chemical attacks started.

“I think that it’s incredibly important that there be intervention at some point—with over 475,000 casualties, there should definitely be some sort of mediation.”

The strike has been both criticized and praised globally, giving rise to heated controversy. Even within the Exeter community, opinions on Trump’s action vary greatly.Coming after multiple investigations into the Trump administration’s ties to Russia, it shocked many to see the president attacking the Assad regime, which Putin openly backs. Ex-national security advisor and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn, one of the White House workers with ties to Russia, was fired after it was discovered he was in close contact with Russian diplomats. Later, it was found that Flynn had taken money from the Russian government to speak on behalf of a Kremlin-backed news firm.Senior Alejandro Arango, who is currently participating in the Exeter-sponsored internship program in Washington, D.C., highlighted the fact that Obama previously tried to get congressional approval to take action against Assad and failed. “The bombing of Syria, even from a Democratic point of view, wasn’t unprecedented,” he said. “President Obama went to Congress to ask them to vote to retaliate against Assad, so we’re not in new waters in terms of Trump’s approach to Syria.”However, senior Alec Howe, Republican Club co-head, felt that Trump’s active approach was a necessary one. “I think America is definitely saying to Assad that he cannot use chemical weapons, that these types of heinous acts are not going to be acceptable during the Trump administration,” he said. “Which personally I support and think was a limited action that went a great way.”Howe also described the missile strike as an effective way of debunking some of the accusations against Trump. “Russia has a lot of vested interest in Syria and the U.S. definitely went against Russia’s interests in a big, public way,” he said. “I don’t think that Trump is Russia’s puppet.”Upper and co-head of Exeter’s Democratic Club Menat Bahnasy condemned Trump’s hypocrisy. “I think that more violence, while also being unwelcoming to those fleeing violence, is extremely hypocritical,” she said. “We are creating chaos in a place where there’s already chaos and then leaving Syrians without a place to go.”Placing political alignment aside, Bahnasy shared her concerns for Syrian citizens caught in the midst of the brutal, six-year civil war. “I think that it’s incredibly important that there be intervention at some point—with over 475,000 casualties, there should definitely be some sort of mediation,” she said.She went on, emphasizing America’s obligation to support Syrian civilians, especially after Trump’s moral justification for the missile attack. “I believe that maybe there’s a slight chance that we could consider attacking the Syrian government regime, if, and only if, America opens its doors to those fleeing it,” she said.Bahnasy also hopes that the situation will not escalate into war. Although she has no worries about the safety of citizens of the United States, Bahnasy fears for the lives of Syrians. “I think a war against the Syrian regime war will turn into a U.S.-Russian war,” she said. “I can’t imagine what would happen to Syria being the middleman in that war, and so overall, whatever happens, it shouldn’t create more havoc and create a less safe state for the Syrians that are left... that’s not the way to go about it.”Although Bahnasy does not believe that a peaceful solution can be reached simply through dialogue, she hopes that the United States will approach the problem of Assad’s regime with the intent of causing as little harm as possible. “I know that Trump cannot sit down with Assad and tell him to stop—that’s simply not plausible—but I think that he can approach this in other humanitarian ways,” Bahnasy said. “I’m a firm believer in not using violence to counteract other violence.”However, Bahnasy expressed uncertainty at how effective or realistic such dialogues would be.  “It would be extremely difficult,” she said. “And America has shown throughout history that it’s not the most tolerant when it comes to compromise.”