Skip to content

Strong Support For Military Strike On Syria

April 13, 2018

Seen in Damascus tonight.


I am 100% in support of the actions tonight from the United States in conjunction with Britain and France regarding a military strike on Syria   It is proper for Donald Trump to call out Russia and Iran for their support of the world’s most murderous regime.   We can, and should, call attention to Trump’s too cozy handling of Russian President Putin over the past 18 months.  That is why the news tonight that Trump called out Putin by name is a most critical part to this story.

But let me reiterate what needs to happen.

What is needed is not another symbolic, targeted airstrike akin to what took place almost a year ago.  What is required is a strategy for Syria and the region.  The Trump White House has been adrift when it comes to seriously considering a policy that allows for the larger long-term needs to be met.  So while I very much applaud a strong reaction to the barbaric behavior from Assad and his military I also want to see an actual policy be developed.

Trump made a huge mistake when stating he wanted to have an exit strategy from Syria.  Since there was no policy in place the exit would only have allowed for a vacuum which rightly has caused the Pentagon, State Department along with allies such as Israel and France to be alarmed.

  1. April 15, 2018 12:32 PM

    The only thing in your comment where we find agreement is that the U.S., France, and GB were not attacked by Syria. Other than that we fundamentally disagree.

    The United States is the world’s leader and with such status has responsibilities to carry out missions that at times range from financial, diplomatic, or as we know this past Friday, militarily oriented.

    Donald Trump did not need—as Obama did not need—as Clinton did not need—and as Reagan did not need (etc.) to ask Congress for the authorization to act in a variety of situations. I could even take this line of reasoning back to FDR and the sale of planes to Chiang Kai-shek,

    You and I have a different view of Executive Power. I grant you there are arguments to be made for and against amassing such power. But I simply do not think actions of the type required for a quick response by the United States can be postponed while Congress fiddles. Only look to 2013 and the Obama attempt to locate the spine of Congress and my point is made.

    I simply think it impossible to understate the fact the Assad regime’s actions over the years constitute a serious and grave threat to the people of that nation. Assad has continually used the most horrific types of weapons ever created.

    Assad has always used chemical weapons—history proves my point– and one of the reasons each time that it is made known such an international revulsion occurs is due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon. These weapons kill everyone in any environment where they’re deployed. That is why we saw once again recently the large number of children in the footage from Syria.

    France and Great Britain both agreed that the Assad regime had established a pattern of dangerous behavior in relation to the use of chemical weapons. They saw the same data and proof of the use of chemical weapons. They also knew the matter could not go unchallenged.

    I am an internationalist and want my country to act in accordance with those views; views shared by many of my fellow citizens—even if they do not know how to define the term. People know right from wrong, and want the nation to respond accordingly. That is why it is imperative for the United States to defend the principles, laws and norms laid out in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    Finally I am always perplexed how some on the far right and the far left have such a disdain for our government, for the facts used to guide policy making, for the news media and information they impart to the nation, and the desire–it seems to me–to make the villains of the world seem to be the ones wronged.

  2. April 15, 2018 9:30 AM

    Your International-law justification is comical; you know this, right?

    A nation cannot simply declare the unlawful use of chemical weapons and then launch attacks, absent first being attacked or in imminent danger of being attacked.

    The U.S., France, and GB were not attacked by Syria.

    Trump’s strike against Syria has no authorization by the United Nations Security Council. This is a fact.

    Domestically, Trump’s strike against Syria was not even authorized by Congress. [There was a secret finding apparently by the Office of Legal Counsel, which Congress cannot even read.]

    As with the 2017 strike against Syria, the UN’s Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is carrying out a fact-finding mission, gathering evidence in a process that has only begun.

    Now, the OPCW fact-finding mission may be slow and may be inadequate, but ignoring this body and then declaring,”I stand with international law this morning. My nation was right for making that point very clear last night” is ludicrous; though Trump is certainly with you.

    The latest UN development this weekend is Russia’s failed proposed resolution at the Security Council, condemning: “aggression by the United States and its allies over suspected chemical weapons use in the country, amid pressure from the Secretary-General to abide by the tenets of international law.”

    Consider, if Russia and China, (who both voted for the above failed resolution), were to now declare the United States used chemical weapons, say CS gas, on the American people, and then launched an air strike against the United States, citing the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Geneva Protocol and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court without formal pleadings and findings. This would be an act of war.

    Legally, under international law, the United States is on the same ground vis a vis Syria.

    Trump can’t just declare this international law treaty was violated, and this other international law treaty was violated, so we and France and Britain are attacking.

    Not if international law is claimed as a justification.

    To spell out: International law is a process. A country cannot state:

    Another country, Syria, did X
    We find it illegal and violative of the Chemical Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolutions,

    So we launch air strikes.

    This is not international law. This is lawlessness: We say what the law is, we say who violated the law, we say what the response is.

    This is aggression by a country and its civilian supporters saying, we have so stated, and it is so.

    Any reference to international law as justification is absurd, absent formal pleading and findings, has no basis,

    I’m curious, do you still claim a basis in international law for the air strike, because Trump said so?

  3. April 14, 2018 11:47 AM

    When international law is violated over the use of chemical weapons that then requires a robust and not-to-miss response. There can no wiggle room or queasiness about what should be done. Just to make it clear using chemical arms is considered a war crime and banned under international treaties, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Geneva Protocol and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I stand with international law this morning. My nation was right for making that point very clear last night.

  4. April 14, 2018 8:38 AM

    I know.

    Missiles exploding, and lighting up the sky are very exciting, a true spectacle. Trump just said, everything worked perfectly. How strong, decisive and morally clear is this leader.

    “I would like a careful explanation of why we should believe anything this administration* says simply because the boom-boom has started,” offered Charles Pierce this morning. Yes.

    You may wish to ask yourself why the bright lights and boom boom were executed last night.

    Would it be because folks are so easily entranced by bright lights and boom boom?

    If you can manage to divert yourself from the lights, check out:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: