Search This Blog

Sunday, April 9, 2017

The Policy Behind The Syria Missile Attack

The New Yorker, a bastion of left wing thought, has an article under the headline, "Trump’s Confusing Strike on Syria."  Really?  It's confusing?  Only for an anti-Trump liberal could the missile strike on Assad's forces be called confusing.

What is the message of that strike?  It's very clear:  the USA will not tolerate the use of sarin gas by anyone.  Chemical weapons like that nerve agent are banned under international law.  So too is the intentional targeting of civilians.  And yet, the Assad regime did both with the same strike.  For those like the New Yorker who are confused, the message to Assad is don't do that again.

The New Yorker thinks that this cannot be the entire message because it does not explain why the USA would move against one war crime but not against all being committed around the world.  Now that's confusing -- not the message, but that the New Yorker would be unable to see that as has been said many times, the USA is not the world's policeman.  When it is in our national interest (as it is with stopping the spread of WMD's like the sarin gas), America will act.  When it is not (as when some warlord in South Sudan tortures political or military prisoners), America won't act.  The USA certainly will not approve of such war crimes, but we don't have to risk our people to stop them.

The rest of the New Yorker article just criticizes Trump generally for not following the Obama four step foreign policy: 1. See a problem when you can no longer avoid it; 2. Dither about what to do; 3. Dither some more; and 4. Ultimately decide it is too risky to act/look for a way out that avoids any decision.

People can criticize President Trump for his foreign policy; it is their right as Americans.  No one, however, can honestly say that Trump's latest move in Syria is confusing. 

No comments: