Trump’s military move, which he said was a necessary response to an « affront to humanity » after more than 70 people died in a poison gas attack in northwest Syria on Tuesday, puts the US and Russian Federation into a potentially unsafe stand-off as Moscow stands behind Assad after six years of civil war. And Thursday night, Trump did what President Obama didn’t do after a more egregious gas attack in Syria in 2013: he took military action, and did so quickly – within 48-hours.
A total of 59 Tomahawk missiles hit Shayrat Air Force Base, a small installation with two runways, where Syrian warplanes often take off to bomb targets in northern and central Syria. A 10 Downing Street spokesperson said, « Overnight, the U.S. has taken military action against the Syrian regime, targeting the airfield in Shayrut which was used to launch the chemical weapons attack earlier this week ». If Syria escalates its actions to provoke the USA, how will Trump respond? Assad is « normalizing the use of chemical weapons, which may then be adopted by others », Tillerson said, « So it’s important that some action be taken on behalf of the worldwide community to make clear that the use of chemical weapons continues to be a violation of global norms ». However, is the president ready to respond to – and accept responsibility for – what may come next? « There’s real uncertainty from this administration », he said. « I think that should be a minimum standard set around the world ». John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. – two of the upper chamber’s more hawkish members. « Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched », Trump continued. In Washington, Republican leaders applauded Trump’s actions, despite the president launching the strike without congressional authorization.
President Donald Trump’s first 100 days, we’re asking him questions that our audience wants answers to. « We should not escalate this conflict without clear goals and a plan to achieve them ». Legal experts differ on whether Thursday’s cruise missile strike on a Syrian airfield violated US or global law. US officials said they informed Russian forces ahead of the missile attacks and that they took pains to avoid hitting Russian troops at the base, saying there were no strikes on sections of the base where Russians were present. But the issue of just how much military action the president can authorize in Syria, in nearby Iraq or around the globe in the so-called « war on terror » remains vexing for many in Congress. In a Friday morning statement released online in Arabic, the Syrian Arab News Agency reported that one of its air bases in the central portion of the country at dawn had fallen victim to « American aggression ». But Safronkov offered a way ahead for the Trump administration – stop attacks, pursue a political settlement, and work jointly to combat « the terrorist threat ». He said that the United Kingdom government had not been asked to take part in the strike. Like Trump, many suggested that military strikes and, in some cases, more assertive action to depose Assad represented the best strategy for relieving the refugee crisis. McConnell, in a press conference before his chamber’s concurrent break, dismissed the idea. He said the United Kingdom will work in the U.N. Security Council to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. « Secretary Kerry, I guess in order to reassure the left-leaning members of his own party, said it would sort be like a pinprick ». An AUMF, when it stands is questionable in terms of its constitutionality is concerned. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement that he « understands efforts to deter further attacks ». Many of us have no confidence in our commander-in-chief. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee last month, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he would welcome debate on a new war authorization for the Middle East. « Again, I don’t get any step that the next step is there ». These things have been on the shelf for years. « [Trump] should not have done this without coming to Congress ». It is for this very reason that the Founders wanted a deliberate, thoughtful foreign policy, and when military action was needed, they wanted it debated and authorized by Congress.