Throughout his campaign, President Trump criticized and condemned the foreign policy of President George W. Bush. At the center of his criticism was the Iraq War. But now Trump has ordered military action against Syrian airfields. Within his first 100 days, Trump has become yet another Republican president who ordered unilateral attacks on a nation that did not attack or threaten to attack us.
“Numerous previous attempts at changing [Syrian President Bashar al-]Assad’s behavior have all failed and failed very dramatically,” President Trump said in announcing to the nation he ordered an airstrike against a Syrian airfield. “As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies.”
Trump was specifically referencing reports that Assad, marred in a violent civil war, used chemical weapons against innocent civilians. Those reports shocked the world, as images of dead and injured children flooded television and the internet.
Syria marked a defining moment for Trump. Would he heed the warning of President John Adams not to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy, or walk hand in hand with a Hillary Clinton who, just hours before Trump’s announcement, argued, “I really believe that we should have – and still should – take out [Assad’s] airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them“?
Now we know the answer. “It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,” Trump said after launching 40-plus tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air base where it is believed the chemical weapons were launched.
The response from the president’s neo-conservative foes was fervid. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., issued a joint statement saying, “Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action. For that, he deserves the support of the American people.”
The support of this dynamic duo should cause more concern than calm. McCain has long blasted Trump because Trump was the voice of an America-First policy that sought to indict and convict the interventionism McCain had long peddled.
Speaking at a forum organized by a European think tank in March, McCain warned that the “new world order under enormous strain” and “we can’t stand by and lament, we’ve got to be involved.” Those comments came after McCain told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he worried about Trump’s “understanding of some of these issues.”
The fact that McCain is doing a victory lap suggests neo-conservatism is creeping back into the White House. Is it a coincidence that shortly after Steve Bannon – the president’s top advisor and frequent McCain target – was publicly “removed” from his national security post that the order is given to drop bombs on Syria?
The White House is downplaying the airstrikes, claiming they were limited and narrow. They are defending the president’s change of heart by invoking humanitarian concerns.
“Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children,” President Trump said Thursday night. “It was a slow and brutal death for so many — even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”
While there is no doubt Assad’s actions were evil and repugnant, can we say that they were a direct threat to our national security? Is there any proof that Assad was going to use such weapons against the U.S.? Is there evidence that Assad would hand such weapons over to terrorists? Did we have intel that U.S. troops in the region were in danger?
By using humanitarian concerns to justify intervention in a Syrian civil war that did not threaten us, Trump’s foreign policy is now susceptible to abuse, confusion, and future charges of favoritism. If humanitarian concerns are part of the Trump doctrine, where do we draw the line in the future?
Do we bomb North Korea for starving its population, including children? Do we bomb African nations that turn a blind eye to the sex trade of children? Do we bomb Latin American nations unable to protect their children from the ravages of the drug trade?
The toughest job of a president is to understand that moral action and national interest are not always one in the same. Candidate Trump seemed to recognize this distinction, but President Trump does not.
“What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict,” Trump tweeted when President Barack Obama was considering military strikes against Assad. Trump predicted that, “[t]here is no upside and tremendous downside.”
We are about to find out who is right about Syria: Candidate Trump or President Trump?
Joseph Murray (@realJoeMurray) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. Previously, he was a campaign official for Pat Buchanan. He is the author of “Odd Man Out” and is administrator of the LGBTrump Facebook page.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
