Should the U.S. get involved in Syria?


Coleman Wallace and Russell Glass, Staff Writer, Co-Website Editor

Imagine sitting in your living room, eating dinner with your family. A normal day, a normal meal. All of the sudden you hear a crash outside and a loud chorus of screaming. Instinctively you stand to see what is wrong but suddenly collapse to your knees, your lungs beginning to burn as if a hot iron had been forced down your throat. You look to your family and see them experiencing the same thing too. Your city block has been bombed with a catastrophically destructive nerve agent called Sarin gas. 50 times more powerful than cyanide, Sarin caused complete paralysis of the lungs and total shutdown of almost all nervous system functions. Victims often experience horrific pain and suffering before their.

On April 11, The dictator of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad wielded this chemical weapon against his own innocent civilians, killing 70 people, 10 of which were small children. In a just act of retaliation, the United States launched 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) at the Syrian air base that launched the planes that carried out the attacks. Controversy has spun from this attack, with many claiming that it is an unwarranted action of international aggression or that it has unforeseen consequences that could impact the US for years to come. While both of those things are potentially true, the pros of this attack far outweigh the cons. By attacking and killing his own people, Al-Assad broke the Chemical Weapons Conventions, a world meeting in the 1993 that placed Sarin Gas on the list of chemical agents banned in war or peacetime. Bashar Al-Assad slaughtered nearly a hundred innocent people in their homes with one of the most painful nerve agents ever contrived by mankind. This action by the leader of a country already enthralled in turmoil is one that the United States cannot allow to go unpunished. If Al-Assad is allowed to go blameless from his murderous actions, then there is nothing to stop him from attacking his own people again and again. So yes, Trump’s militaristic actions may have consequences, but the consequences of punishing a leader who murders his own innocents are far favorable to allowing Al-Assad to continue without blame. The 59 Tomahawk missiles fired at Syria are long overdue actions, and they certainly won’t be the last intervention the U.S. has into the country. But until further action is warranted, it is certainly safe to say that Donald Trump’s military advisors made a wise decision on this matter.


“The Congress shall have the power to…provide for the common defence and…to declare war”
The Constitution is explicit; Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war. However, U.S. military involvement since the conflict in Korea has existed without declaring war on another sovereign nation. And on April 6, President Trump without Congress’s consent, ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles to be launched at a Syrian air strip in fact was in retaliation for Syria’s president using chemical weapons. But the United States still hasn’t been attacked by Syria.
They did not send bombers to our bases or troops to fight against ours in open conflict, Syria has no military quarrel with the U.S., but we’re picking a fight, and a dangerous one. Bashar Al Assad is a tyrant, but it is not the job of our nation’s military to go around and slap every country that mistreats its people or ideologically disagrees with us and slap them on the wrist. 59 missiles may seem like a lot, but in reality, it is a pin prick, a $60 million pin prick.
Trump and other government officials complain about the national debt, and in order to balance the budget, Trump cut the $105 million the national endowment for the arts receives annually. But they will throw away $60 million in one night in the name of justice.
United States military intervention is financially irresponsible. And a man who ran on the idea of “America first” cannot continue to be the world’s babysitter, gambling with American money and lives. It has to end. And if our representatives would respect the Constitution and only allow Congress to declare war instead of whatever suit happens to be occupying the oval office, I believe our streak of senseless violence would end.
If a body of 535 people had to deliberate on whether or not to spend millions of dollars and lives on a war with an unclear directive, I think we would have a far different situation than with one man and his small military council.
We must shy away from our constant interventionist behavior being determined by one man’s say. It wastes money that would better be spent on the citizens of this nation and wastes lives of the brave men and women who defend it.