After President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria on April 6th, mass panic spread across social media. Every news network snatching for any detail they could find. I’ve taken the liberty of bringing together many of the disconnected details into a coherent narrative. Below is a summary of the strike from South Front:
What caused this?
In response to an alleged chemical weapons attack by Syrian President Assad. President Trump ordered a strike on the Shayrat Airbase where the strike was conducted from. Russian officials dispute the claim, saying this was the result of a leak from a rebel-held chemical weapons depot hit by Syrian airstrikes and not on purpose.
The Governor of Homs, Talal al-Barazi claims 14 people including nine civilians were killed in the US Airstrike. However, the main target of the strike was the infrastructure in itself.
The Russian Defense Minister claims only 23 of the 59 missiles reached their planned target. Overall Syria has been embroiled in a costly civil war for many years with many factions fighting one another. War crimes have been continually committed as the war has reached its threshold of brutality.
A surprising response
Even close Trump allies have questioned the strike such as Nigel Farage. Another interesting fact is that oil prices went up quickly after the strike. Online many are expressing their views in both positive and negative ways. Let’s look at both perspectives:
It sent a strong signal to the world of strength and the refusal to stay silent in the face of suffering. It could be viewed as a symbolic gesture of seriousness. Since Trump was having dinner that same night with the President Of China and likely talking about the issues with North Korean weapons. Every political leader must make the choice whether they wish to be feared or loved. It appears Trump has chosen the former to deal with the brutal regimes of the east.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the following after the strike:
“I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or our posture relative to our military activities in Syria today,”
Then he ended his statement with the following:
“There’s been no change in that status.”
General Allen predicts the strike will serve as a deterrent enough to cause Assad to “think carefully every time” time he plans to launch attacks against civilian populations. He further predicted that such shows of force would help the US regain power on the world stage.
“We have this old saying that sometimes it’s not a bad thing to just play the crazy American.”
Relations have surely increased in intensity and strained with that of Russia and Syria. However, WW3 is likely not looming on the horizon. Though it is true Russia has come out strongly against the attack, internationally there has been a large showing of support.
Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman said the following:
“This step by Washington inflicts considerable damage to US-Russia relations, which are already in a lamentable state.”
Russia soon after diverted a warship to the Mediterranean to protect the Syrian coast and have vowed to bolster Assad’s defenses against any further attacks. This will likely mean they will deploy more Anti-Aircraft technology in the region.
While China said they understood the US response in light of the death of children. The pictures of which are rumored to have deeply affected Trump enough to act swiftly. Now the future world stage is shaky at best as this marks a new stage of foreign relations.
Rand Paul summed up the oppositional position the best in his most recent statement:
“If we topple Assad, what comes next? Will we like the Islamic rebels that take over? Perhaps they hate us and Israel more than Assad does.”
Was It Constitutional?
Senator Rand Paul was unsurprisingly one of the first voices to question the constitutionality of President Trump launching the strike to begin with. While his father Ron Paul called the attack a false flag along with various Alternative media sources.
Rand Paul condemnation was clear and concise:
“The president really doesn’t have the authority under the Constitution to initiate war, and so what I think we’re doing now is illegal and unconstitutional.”
Though there may be plenty of debate on the subject, under law the War Powers Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of an armed forces strike.
Take note of the word notify, not advise and consent, as this is not a declaration of war. Under a declaration of war, the President has plenary power. Therefore it could be easily argued that the President was fully legally justified to launch such strikes.
What do you think about President Trump recent action? Comment below your thoughts and let’s start the conversation.