On April 6, 2017, President Donald Trump for better or worse, ordered a tomahawk missle attack on the Al- Shayrat air base in Syria. The military action was precipitated by Syrian dictator Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. The transgression transpired on April 4th and was in direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. While President Trump’s instincts to react to such atrocities is understandable, was it the correct course of action? Considering the immense amount of complexity of the situation with Syria’s six year civil war, was this a rash decisions?
However, even beyond the scope of the ramifications of such a siege upon Syria, how will this effect the U.S. ? Was such action even legal per the Consitution or other governing documents? Such questions reflect that the consequences of our intervention should be weighted from a national and international perspective. We cannot keep aimlessly meddling in the affairs of middle eastern nations. Our erroneous attempts to intervene in Iraq and Libya lead to further destabilization and created further chaos in the region. Then again, I am not an expert on foreign affairs. However, I would to analyze whether or not this was quagmire from a domestic paradigm.
WAS IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ACT:
The siege order by our commander in-chief should be perceived as declaration of war. Whether the confrontation is meant to be directed towards Syria or indirectly towards Russia via alliance. In a sense the act is an implied declaration regardless of overt interpretation. However, did Trump’s knee jerk offensive reaction to Assad’s alleged misconduct violate our own Constitution? Well Senator Rand Paul seems to think so. Per a CNN interview the Kentucky Sentor expressed that Trump did circumvent Congressional input in the attacks. Paul stated that it was ” an inappropriate way to start a war” and that ” the most important step was skipped”. Paul also expressed that he felt that justifying the action through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military force, would be a misapplication of that specific exception.
While Senator Paul’s concerns in regards to Trump’s over extension of power is valid, the question of constitutionality still remains. It is per the United States Consitution is unconstitutional under most circumstances to engage in violent conflict / war without congressional approval. Per article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
” The Congress shall have the power to……. To declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water….”
Per the document verbatim, it states that it is not the president that possesses this authority, but congress. So it is certainty problematic that Trump did violate our own Constitution in order to attempt to rectify the scenario in Syria. Even if one were to argue the 2001 AUMF as justification for Trumps over extension of power, it should be noted that it was measure specific to the events of 9/11. It presented its own Constitutional challenges fifteen years ago. It is shameful if we as a nation chose to embrace such violation of our constitution. Such checks and balances were established to protect us from the peril of tyranny. However, that is just mere aside, what the concern needs to be is that with such a complex situation we cannot have our president violating our own governing documents to do what he perceives to be right. Doing so merely compromises the integrity of the core values of country. We even in times of crisis cannot afford to compromise and cheapen the principles of America. Over the past decades it has become standard pratice to violate our rights ( Patriot Act, NSA surveillance).
( The Constitution of the United States with Index and The Declaration of Independence, 21st edition, 2003, p. 6)
IF THERE IS A PROMISE YOU DO NOT KEEP IT WILL HAUNT YOU IN YOUR SLEEP:
I am not going to get into whether or not this chemical weapon attack was a false flag. I will abstain from going down that convoluted rabbit hole. However, please remember to be open minded, remember the Gulf of Tankan incident has been declassified as a false flag for engendering the Vietnam conflict. What is more troubling to me was that Trump painted Hilary Clinton as the warmonger. He even spoke out against president Obama’s involvement in Syria in 2013. Trump during his campaign promised to not do anything to engender war with Russia. While he did provide advance notice to Russian forces in the area, he still exerted aggression on a Russian ally. Even though he promised not too exhibit such aggression and framed Hilary as the type to do so. He chooses to execute a directive that could potentially cause more friction and potentially engender a conflict between US and Russia (even if it is a cold conflict).
I really was trying to give Donald Trump a chance prior to the whole Syrian Strike. I liked hearing about tax cuts and the loosening of gun restrictions, ect. While I disagreed on the Muslim ban and the wall, I was trying to see the good. However, now that he has so blatantly violated our constitution I am livid. I hate to say it, however, we may very well have a tyrant in the White House. Trump has muscled his way into a very complex and chaotic situation that cannot be merely remedied via projectiles. Essentially , he impulsively jumped into the fray and now we are in for a wild ride. Personally, I do not care for whiplash. I would have thought that our failures in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya to intervene in their affairs resulting in failed states, would proven to be allegorical lessons. Symbols of how wanton actions, ignoring geopolitical motives, and attempting to manipulate circumstances is a foolish course of action. If anything our intervention in the Middle East engenders further destabilization and is merely making matters more dire.
Sent from my iPad