Following the chemical attack in Syria, President Trump launched 59 tomahawk missiles to strike an airfield in Syria. They struck with incredible effect, almost completely destroying the target. But the real success was in changing our position on the world stage. Where Trump goes from here will define the United States’ position in the world. The right path forward is something it seems no one else is advocating for: stop and evaluate, not to rush forward or to hide.
Since the attack, everyone has something to say. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., have come out condemning the action. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has come out demanding more actions. And for all the talk, neither side is advocating the right path forward.
The Syrians used chemical weapons. Anyone who goes through a military gas chamber knows just how bad this can be. We aren’t talking about just the CS gas of basic training, but actual chemical weapons. The use of this kind of weapon against civilians cannot be ignored, but the U.S. cannot be the police of the world.
We’ve over-committed to wars in the past, and Paul is reasonably concerned about committing elsewhere. In reality, we should only operate in a capacity that offers the U.S. an advantage. Trump’s move offered just that. He took the minimum action required to achieve the desired effect.
After the weak foreign policy of President Barack Obama in Syria and his red lines, Trump took this chance to change the narrative. He showed that he wasn’t bluffing. He took an action, he showed his commitment, but he didn’t commit U.S. forces to the ground.
While I feel for the position of the libertarians and their desire to stay out of conflicts, they take it too far. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has had years of talk, without action from Obama. He would continue his current path, pushing the limits further and further. We cannot allow that aggression to go unchecked like we did in the 1930s. This kind of conflict doesn’t go away, it just allows the Syrians to pick up steam.
Trump’s response was measured and proper. It keeps Assad in check, and it changed the world narrative. All that for the low cost of about $100 billion. Which is a pittance compared to any other action that could be taken (about $2 trillion in Iraq). We got all the advantages without going into a war in Syria.
Now, the infamous war hawk, McCain, has decided Trump’s move is a good “first step,” implying that he wants more. He will never be happy with some small missile attack. If it’s not a fully engaged ground war, McCain will not be satiated. He didn’t learn the lesson of the protracted war in Iraq.
In 2003, Trump stood against the war in Iraq. He doesn’t want to get us into a war, but he knows he has to act. His action is measured and doesn’t go beyond the apex of victory.
The right answer is to wait. There is no reason to take further steps in Syria yet. To ignore the aggressions in Syria like Obama did would be a mistake, but to go further would be a mistake as well. The proper move going forward is to let Secretary of Defense James Mattis do his job.
This well-measured response has the fingerprints of Mattis all over it. Maximum effect for minimum engagement. It is strategic theory in action.
Now we need to wait and see. The ball is in Assad’s court.
Trump’s response sent a clear message to the world. Obama is gone, Trump is here. Your aggression will not be ignored. America is back.
Chris Kalbach is editor of Conservative Newsstand (a sister publication to the Washington Examiner).
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
