Not surprisingly to anyone who has read my recent blogs or tweets, I strongly disagreed with Trump's decision to attack Syria, which allegedly launched a poison gas attack against defenseless civilians. This morning Trump and the Pentagon are hyping the alleged success and precision of destruction of facilities purportedly involved in the research and/or production of biological and/or chemical agents.
Let's be clear here: I don't like Syrian President Assad, and the world would be a better place without him. I would not mourn the loss of facilities used to produce agents aimed at killing civilians.
But here's the problem: Syria did not attack the United States. The Constitution does not make us the world's policeman. Pure and simple, not only did the President violate Constitution but also the War Powers Act; constitutionally the power to declare war is a power reserved to the Congress; the POTUS' role is to engage in defensive/imminent threat matters. Assad still hasn't consolidated his country from civil war, never mind attack a country thousands of miles away, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. Syria is not a legitimate military threat against the US.
Syria was largely winning its war for reunification and consolidation when Trump announced plans to leave Syria--something Assad wanted; it's impossible to see why Assad would put a US departure at risk with a brazen chemical attack on a small number of civilians. It seems far more likely like the Islamic militants fighting Assad to establish an even more brutal dictatorship had more of a motive in the US staying. I've read news report suggesting both sides--including the anti-Assad coalition--had access to chemical weapons.
I think the unprovoked murder of civilians by either side is an abomination. But I seriously doubt that Trump had the hard evidence in the short decision cycle to point the finger at Assad (when even his Chief of Staff candidly revealed there was no proof of earlier alleged Assad chemical attacks).
The fact is, even if Trump had evidence and even if it was a surgical strike, we do not have the moral authority to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, even if they are persecuting their own people. There are horrible examples of regimes which have engaged in crimes against humanity; Cambodia, China, and the Soviet Union immediately come to mind.
I wouldn't care if polls showed a 99% approval of Trump's intervention. I think Ron Paul has collected 1 to 2 dozen Trump tweets denouncing any Obama intervention under similar circumstances about 5 years back. Trump ran on an anti-interventionist "America First" campaign. But the fact that Trump ran a fraudulent campaign isn't the issue. He knew that Middle East meddling wasn't constitutional.
It's time to impeach Trump.
