Last Sunday, four individuals were randomly murdered in a Waffle House in Tennessee. The following day, 10 innocent pedestrians were murdered in a terrorist attack in Toronto. With senseless attacks occurring seemingly every day, and amid rising tensions over gun reform, people are feeling less safe than ever. There seems to be no place to hide from the ever-encroaching darkness in the world. This growing anxiety is palpable even on our campus.
So, when President Donald Trump struck the Bashar al-Assad regime on April 13 in response to its use of chemical weapons to kill many innocent people, it is understandable why many would applaud that action without carefully analyzing it. Such a seemingly forceful response makes us feel as though we are standing up for justice and fighting off evil in the world, while also protecting ourselves. However, it is important to inspect the strike rationally.
On April 26, guest columnist Eli Krule wrote a piece defending Trump’s intervention in Syria. Krule said that the strike was important because it showed that the United States is willing to stand up against immoral acts. He said, “We must not let our hatred and disdain for the Trump administration blind us to the injustice and suffering happening in Syria.” He continued, “If we have any moral compass as a country, we must support this strike.”
While I agree with Krule that we must “speak up for the victims of horrendous acts of violence” and admire his support of intervention in Syria, I do not agree that the strike achieved that end. Rather, it was just a political move on the part of Trump.
If Trump was really concerned about standing up against morally reprehensible actions, he would not have waited until now to send that message. Trump has been in office for around a year and three months, but has done little to nothing to save the people of Syria. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered, but only when chemical weapons were used did Trump respond. So, clearly, Trump only cares about appearing strong and giving the impression that he is protecting Americans from the spread of dangerous weapons, rather than about saving innocent Syrians.
The strike failed to make any meaningful impact and did not send the strong message that Krule suggests. Israeli officials called the attack a failure, and an Israeli senior defense official said, “If President Trump had ordered the strike only to show that the United States responded to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, then that goal has been achieved. But if there was another objective — such as paralyzing the ability to launch chemical weapons or deterring Assad from using it again — it’s doubtful any of these objectives have been met.”
In addition, the attack failed to damage the Syrian Air Force, which was allegedly used to deploy the chemical weapons. Israeli officials also criticized the United States for talking so much about the attack beforehand, and allowing Syria to move their assets. This perfectly illustrates how the United States was not interested in preventing future attacks, but rather putting on a show for the world stage.
Krule is right; it is morally reprehensible to sit silently as the Syrian regime brutalizes its own people. However, real meaningful action is needed and not just blind missile strikes. The Assad regime must be toppled and that must be the United States’ objective if it wants to meaningfully stand up against the Assad human rights abuses. There are a number of approaches the United States can take to achieve this, such as pressuring Russia, Turkey and Iran, working with Israel or placing troops on the ground. However, lauding non-praiseworthy intervention only serves to perpetuate inaction.
Michael Harel is a junior majoring in political science.