A POLITICAL MINEFIELD
Military strike a dilemma for Dems
The U.S. military strike against Syria last night, along with the growing threat from North Korea, presents Democrats with a difficult political dilemma this morning — continue their vowed resistance of the Trump administration at every turn or rally behind the White House in the name of national unity.
The U.S. launched scores of cruise missiles against a Syrian air base last night after President Trump vowed earlier in the day that “something should happen” to Syrian President Bashar Assad for his culpability in a chemical attack that killed at least 86 of his own people, including 30 children.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tad Oelstrom, prior to the airstrikes, said Democrats actually may find common ground with Trump on Syria.
“I’m not sure this is as much of a partisan issue as people think,” said Oelstrom. “It seems to me that both sides of the aisle have been pushing through actions against Syria.”
Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, noted, “With military action abroad, any president has a big advantage. No one knows all the facts but a few in his administration, and the focus is on the fighting troops. Critics have to be careful to praise the troops while questioning the action.”
The U.S. retaliatory strike against Assad might force Democrats to do something they loathe — publicly support Trump and show a unified front against a common enemy. But that’s no guarantee in a supercharged political climate where some far-left lawmakers face extreme backlash for giving even the slightest credit to Trump.
“I hope they would not politicize national security and make a decision based on what’s best for American interests,” said Peter Brookes, a national security expert at The Heritage Foundation. “That’s what’s important. We don’t like to see our national security politicized.”
Don’t count on it, said Adil Najam, the dean of the Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University.
“The likelihood of this becoming political is 100 percent,” he said. “I think the Democrats will deal with this exactly the same way that Republicans dealt with exactly these same countries with Obama.”
Trump himself rode all the way to the White House on criticism of Obama being too weak on North Korea and for not following through on his “red line” ultimatum against Assad on chemical weapons in Syria.
But both Democrats and Republicans will also have to consider how much faith to put in Trump’s abilities as an untested commander-in-chief with no military or foreign affairs experience to successfully pull off what could be either a quick strike or long-term operation. Blindly siding with the president on an extended military action out of fear of being branded unpatriotic can be politically risky as well.
Then-Sen. John Kerry fumbled his way through the 2004 election against President George W. Bush by claiming he opposed the Iraq war, even though he voted to authorize the use of force. The confusion over his flip-flop was perhaps best illustrated in his explanation of a wartime funding bill: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
In the 2008 presidential primary, one of Hillary Clinton’s liabilities among Democratic voters was her support of the Iraq war, which then-Sen. Barack Obama had opposed.
But there is danger as well for Trump, whose core base resonated with his message of “America First.”
“That assumes not being as internationally active,” said Najam. “Not being the global policeman. Not being involved in as many international conflicts. In fact, that was a pretty clear message for which he derived support.”
As troubling as the images of children choking on chemical gas in Syria may be, Trump could face resistance from his own supporters if he can’t articulate how time and resources spent on neutralizing Assad will make America great again.