Trump vs Syria—recapping the latest attack

By Laura Bohnert

Following Tuesday’s deadly chemical bombing of a rebel-held part of Northern Syria, Khan Sheikhoun, the United States has launched a military strike on Syrian government airbase Shayrat Airfield.

It is believed that the chemical bombing used the nerve agent sarin, killing at least 70 people (many of them children) and injuring hundreds. It is being deemed one of the worst atrocities to occur in the six years of the Syrian war.

Syria’s use of the banned chemical weapon violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

At approximately 3:40 a.m. (local time) on Thursday, on US President Donald Trump’s orders, US warships located in the Eastern Mediterranean, the USS Ross and the USS Porter, launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the airbase in response to the attack, targeting aircraft, aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and killing 6 people.

The airbase is believed by US officials to be home to the warplanes that carried out the earlier chemical attack.

Hours after the strike, Trump issued a statement declaring the act “vital national security of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

While the strike, which represents the first direct military action to be taken against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by the US, is being commended by some who believe it demonstrates the US president’s “willingness to act” in the face of “heinous” crimes, it is being regarded by others as a shift in policy. Trump’s campaign initially opposed taking military action against the Syrian President’s regime.

Others are concerned that this represents an escalation of the US military campaign—one that could be interpreted as an act of war by the Syrian government.

It’s an act that may have broken any alleged ties between the US presidency and Russia. Russia, a powerful backer of the Syrian regime, declared the act to be “short-sighted” and an “act of aggression against a sovereign state.”

It was known that there were Russians present at Shayrat Airfield during the time of the attack, but according to US officials, Russia was given a one-hour notice that the strike was going to take place.

While many, including Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, have released statements supporting Trump’s response to the tragic chemical weapon attacks, the US president’s lack of protocol and hasty decision-making is making others uneasy—including US lawmakers, who observed that Trump’s acting without first consulting Congress is troubling considering that it could unilaterally start a war.

Senator Rand Paul has stated that “The President needs congressional authorization for military action, as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate.”

The strike can easily be justified, but the fact of the matter, as many are pointing out, is that Trump isn’t playing with toy soldiers. His army—and the other military forces (and civilians) that would be brought into a war—consists of human lives, and acting in a way that has such severe implications for so many parties has a lot more risks when the act both subverts Congressional protocols and results from what many have described to be a strong emotional response to the aftermath of the chemical attack.

The willingness to act in the face of an atrocity is commendable, but so, too, is the ability to fully and rationally consider the implications of an act that can so clearly be construed as an assertion of power—especially when those implications are putting so many lives at stake.