Editor’s Note: This is part of a series at Jaded Politics titled “Opposing Views”. Today we look at the issue of Syria from both sides. The following is an argument against Syrian intervention.
A few years ago, Senator Ted Cruz warned against launching bombs against Assad to avoid turning our U.S. military into Al Qaeda’s Air Force. Those words remain true today. Many Republicans celebrated the recent use of military force without congressional approval as an act of strength when it only further weakened our Constitution as the legitimate supreme law of the land.
President Trump’s intervention on the surface is a change from President Obama’s past strategies in Syria. However, Obama and Hillary’s failed drone strategy in decapitation of ISIS leaders and camps has done little to weaken the threat of radical Islamic terrorism around the world. Terror attacks in England, Sweden, Norway, Egypt, and the United States; demonstrate fighting terrorism cannot be solved by conventional warfare, or European-styled open borders.
What is lost in Trump’s new Syria policy is that is has nothing to do with fighting radical Islamic terrorism, or humanitarian interests. It’s all about regime change. Let’s be honest here. Syria’s use of chemical weapons is not a U.S. National Security interest. There is no threat to the United States of long range ballistic missiles equipped with chemical weapons from Syria being launched at American cities.
Assad is an unrepentant war criminal and his actions against his people are crimes against humanity. However, Assad and Russia have been fighting ISIS, Al-Nusra, Al-Jabbar, and numerous splinter groups in Syria for years; including so-called moderate jihadists the Pentagon has armed and trained with U.S. tax dollars. America’s role is not serving as the United Nation’s global military force. America’s military should always defend America first, not Syria.
War must always be declared by congress first, and the War Powers Act only applies if the U.S. is under imminent attack or a national emergency resulting from an attack.
The executive branch of America’s government should not be following the U.N. Charter’s Responsibility to Protect, but rather should follow the U.S. Constitution. Republican voters did not vote for the foreign policy mandate of John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barrack Obama.
Yes, Russia remains a threat to American hegemony. However, neoconservatism has failed miserably in making America great again. Sixty years of U.S. military occupation along the South Korean border hasn’t worked in stopping North Korea’s increasing nuclear security threat. Neoconservatism also has not prevented China from militarizing man-made islands in the South China Sea. In the same way, Russia has become a rising global power since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Similarly, Iran has emerged as a rising power after the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Instead of accommodating failed policies like regime change, President Trump may want to listen to those alleged outliers opposed to his change of policy in Syria. Since those opposition voices are his constituency who put him into the oval office to buck the establishment; not join it as a card-carrying neocon.