Last week my fellow Opinion columnist, Olivier Weiss, spoke out about his support for the missile strikes ordered by President Donald Trump in retaliation against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons. I agree that it was the right move to retaliate against Assad, but we have to examine the context in which the strike was launched, as well as its aftermath. These things are hard to assess because in the days after the strike, President Trump received seemingly unanimous praise throughout the media. This unified praise drowned out the necessary discussion over our next steps in the Syrian conflict. We should be focusing on holding the Trump administration accountable for its actions instead of blindly praising the president for the strike.
Some reasons to be worried about our continued involvement in Syria is the questionable legality of the strike, and possibility of similar strikes in the future. While a majority of senators support President Trump’s action, many of those same senators support future actions only with Congressional approval. This common understanding in the Senate makes it clear that Congressional approval for future actions in Syria is necessary, and will ensure our next steps are properly reviewed and legally executed. While we know many members of Congress believe Congressional authorization is needed, it is important for us to gauge Trump's feelings toward Congressional authorization prior to future strikes. He did not seem to have any trouble calling for this strike without approval from Congress and due to the widespread positive reaction he has received, he may feel emboldened to continue these dubiously legal military actions and further expand the war powers of the executive.
Another issue with continued American involvement in Syria is the lack of a cohesive strategy from the Trump administration. While U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley has called for a removal of Assad in Syria, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has vocalized different objectives in the region — stating we must prioritize the defeat of ISIS. This inconsistency is worrisome, because it represents a lack of preparedness from our leaders to take on the challenges of the conflict in Syria. It is not good governance to strike a sovereign country without a clear plan, laid out for the days going forward. These statements also show the Trump administration is still undecided about the capacity to which it intends to intervene in Syria. As U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis rightly stated in 2013, "we should not fight wars without a clearly defined end state ... When you go to war, it can't be a half-step." We should be driven to prevent such a half step by ensuring we are not jumping into a Middle Eastern conflict unprepared.
The timing of this action should give citizens reasons to wonder about the true intent behind the airstrike. Because President Trump’s poll numbers have continued to drop, it is possible these strikes were ordered in part to boost his own favorability ratings. With all the positive feedback he has gotten for this action, it is hard to believe that retaliation against Assad was the only thing going through Trump’s head when ordering the missile strike, especially since this strike is a rapid departure from his previous rhetoric. It could be Trump is hoping for a “rally around the flag effect.” Because of broad support from Congress and the praise he has received from the media, he could be successful in that effort. This effect occurred successfully during the presidency of George W. Bush, where in the early stages of the Iraq War he saw his approval ratings increase to 71 percent even though he was elected president losing the popular vote. Trump must prove this act is not a ratings grab by getting to work and ensuring the United States has a cohesive strategy for future actions in Syria.
While Assad’s actions certainly warranted retaliation, it is important to understand the realities of the situation. The fact Trump’s actions were of dubious legality is worrisome and lack of a strategy in Syria is even more still. By carrying out a strike in a sovereign country, we risked committing ourselves to further involvement in the conflict. There are serious questions which need to be addressed about what our government's next move is in the region. Instead of praising Trump for the strike in Syria, we should hold him accountable and ensure we are not jumping blindly into another Middle Eastern conflict.
Jacob Asch is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | YesterdayOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 2 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAmid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
