What “vital national interests” are we protecting in Syria?

Donald Trump won the presidency based on a number of issues, but it could all be summed up in two words – America First.

One of the tenets of an America First policy would be to stay out of foreign entanglements that have no bearing on our national security. During the campaign, Mr. Trump emphasized his support of such policy, in fact specifically stating that out adventurism in Iraq was a huge blunder and that we should not make the same mistake with respect to Syria.

Now, as the president, Trump gave the go ahead to strike a Syrian air base with 59 Tomahawk missiles.

The attack was prompted by a reported chemical weapons attack by Syria’s president Assad on his own people, including women and children. It was a cowardly, horrific attack on innocents. It’s also not the first time Assad has done this.

As horrific as those attacks were, was the United States attacked? In fact, what “vital interests” do we have in Syria?

We’ve been down this road before…have we learned nothing from recent history regarding Middle Eastern dictators?

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds within his own country. Like Assad, he was a terrible person – a brutal thug dictator, but what did it gain us to take him out of power? Our orchestrated “regime change” gave us a very divided Iraq that is now ruled by an anti-west Islamic government. In addition, the vacuum created by our invasion and subsequent withdrawal from the region led to the creation of ISIS. In the Middle East, a brutal thug dictator seems to be what is needed to keep the Muslim crazies in check.

Do we really want to go over that slippery slope again in an effort to affect regime change? Especially considering that Bashar al-Assad is an ally of Russia?

Make no mistake about it – this is very dangerous and has the potential to ignite a war that no sane person wants.

The usual neo-con suspects are very onboard with this. John McCain and Lindsey Graham aren’t even trying to conceal their glee at the prospect of war with Syria.

Why is President Trump doing a total 180 on this? Is it because of misguided emotions or bad advice from the wrong people?

Is it because by bombing Syria, it will also make him look tough on Russia, and thereby “prove” there was no collusion as the left wing loons keep insisting?

Whatever Trump’s rationale, it is certainly not the mark of an America First policy.

The President should take a step back in this case before proceeding into even more dangerous waters.

I suspect that I will take some flak from some readers for siding against the President on this. Please remember though that I was an early supporter of Donald Trump and still believe that as long as he does everything he can to implement the policies on which he campaigned, he will still be a great president.

I also ask you to consider this…if Barack Obama was the one bombing Syria, would you oppose the action; and if so, why would you then support the same action by a different president?

© 2017 Chip McLean – All Rights Reserved

Print Friendly, PDF & Email