The Consequences of Attacking Syria
On Aug. 13, 2013, the New York Times published an article about Obama’s “abrupt” decision to halt a strike on Syria—after Assad used chemical weapons on his own people—in order to seek congressional approval. The proposed strike came after Assad killed 1,400 Syrian citizens in a chemical attack in Damascus. On Apr. 11, 2017, the New York Times published an article about Trump’s missile strike against Assad, and simply posed the question, “What next?” Acting within the law, Trump bypassed the congress and handled the situation with initiative and strength.
Trump’s bold, executive move was clear and calculated and struck back against Assad in an efficient and timely manner. By ordering the strike three days after it was discovered that Assad had employed chemical weapons, Trump managed to punish the regime and hold it accountable before the news moved onto other topics and brushed aside the clear and horrific violation of human rights.
Often I find myself scrolling through Facebook and watching videos showing the deplorable conditions that many Syrians have to face. I remember seeing a particularly graphic image of two children paralyzed from the sarin gas. Of course, I can share these posts with my friends or write a particularly poignant comment online, but this will do nothing to change the events in the long run.
After seeing Trump confidently push back against Assad and deliver a punishment, I felt much better about the United States’ involvement in the war in Syria—we need more concrete, linear decisions like this which clearly strike back against the regime. And while the first strike was a good start, we must implement action which truly holds Assad accountable: an open refugee policy, hand-in-hand cooperation with humanitarian organizations, and dialogue with the United Nations.
Of course, many critics of Trump’s missile strike pointed out the hypocrisy of his travel ban, more popularly known as the “Muslim ban.” I agree; if we truly want to help Syrians fleeing violence and harm, we must be able to welcome them and provide refuge. In order to do this, Trump needs to look beyond his hateful, empty rhetoric, look at the facts, and create a simple vetting process that emits Syrian refugees. America must also work closely with organizations like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders to ensure that refugees are safe and healthy.
I also believe that the word “dialogue” encompasses what must happen with regards to the United Nations. At this point, with tensions high and no possibility of a negotiation with Assad, there is no time for ideological talk of a peaceful solution. If Trump is invested in the future of free Syrians and of the country itself, he must take military action against Assad, while making sure to protect the citizens. The only way to achieve this is to be bold and assertive, both with regards to military pushback and the involvement of humanitarian agencies.
While organizations such as UNICEF are incredibly valuable, a peace treaty is impractical. Assad’s regime of terror, if it is to be stopped, must be met with force and determination.
When the President fired Tomahawk missiles onto one of the Assad regime’s military bases, he was not simply reacting to one instance of violence, terror, or mistreatment of Syrian citizens. Trump was taking a firm stance on America’s view of the war in Syria, saying proudly, “Assad must be stopped.” If Trump continues to see from this viewpoint, he must enact with even more confidence and assertiveness, while ensuring the safety and well-being of those fleeing the situation. Trump’s missile strike was the appropriate measure which will hopefully be accompanied by much more concrete action to come.