Attack on Syria
Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.
Email This Story
In response to the chemical attacks the Syrian government used against their citizens, the U.S. decided to take action killing many Syrian citizens. President Donald Trump, who did not gain approval from Congress or the United Nations, felt it necessary to take these actions. According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. officials said he was able do this because it was in national interest and to protect civilians.
Was it defending national interests? When I first saw this on news, my immediate response was “Why are we attacking Syria now?” Causing more destruction and putting U.S. into the Syrian conflict we don’t need a bigger part in, seems the opposite of helping the nation. While Trump feels the destabilization of Syria will negatively effect the United States and others, I don’t think a militarized action is an appropriate response. Yes, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s actions are too extreme, but his actions are aggressive.
While I am not familiar with how military actions are decided and carried out or why he chose to take such drastic measures, this choice seems to not be right approach. If the United Nations or Congress backed this choice, I would be more okay with it. Once again, Trump’s lack of experience working in the government makes me unsure about his decisions. Now, the U.S. is immersed in a conflict we might not have needed to take part in.
I understand people who fear terrorist attacks, but the U.S. is still prone to domestic terrorism, as well. If Trump truly wanted to help the people of Syria, he should be more open to refugees who seek safety in countries like the U.S., taking them out of the war zone instead of adding more chaos.