Strong Message

Syrian airstrikes right thing to do, but long-term caution essential

President Donald Trump sent a message last week to Syrian strongman Basharal Assad.

A message that was backed up with American firepower.

The president ordered cruise missile strikes on a Syrian airbase linked to Assad’s use of chemical weapons on his own people. President Trump weakened Assad’s ability to deliver chemical weapons. He also put the dictator on notice that such violations of international law will be met with force.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told ABC News on Sunday that the administration is not seeking a regime change through force, but is only trying to deter the future use of banned weapons. He said future use of such weapons would be met with a forceful response, but other than that the U.S. had not changed its position on military action in Syria.

That’s good news.

On the same day, National Security

Advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster told Fox News that fighting the Islamic State was our nation’s top goal, but that ousting Assad was indeed part of the long-term plan, though not necessarily through the use of U.S. force. That’s tricky.

Since the attacks, President Trump’s supporters have been cheering, saying we finally have a president with a “backbone.” The president’s detractors have been just as loud, complaining that Congress was not consulted and worrying about possible dire consequences from last week’s actions, particularly possible problems with Russia.

Both sides should remember that President Barack Obama tried to do much the same

thing—on a larger scale—in 2013, but the plan never came to a vote. It was postponed after the Republican-controlled Congress— which called the plan too little, too late— made it clear they had the votes to block it. President Trump was opposed to such strikes back then, too. Indeed, citizen Trump often suggested the U.S. should spend a lot less time and money on Middle East conflicts.

But being president and watching from the sidelines are two different things. President Trump saw that the time for talk had ended and that action was needed. So he took action.

Should he have consulted Congress? Probably. But the current president isn’t much on asking permission and he sure as heck doesn’t plan to beg forgiveness.

The president took the right step—as long as military action at this time is limited to deterring Assad’s use of chemical weapons as stated. Assad is a brutal dictator, a tyrant to be sure. But he is fighting the Islamic State, which is part of the rebellion against his rule, and we wonder what the U.S. would be left with if we got rid of him.

We doubt may Americans want to see another long-term military operation like in Iraq. Eventually, Russia and Assad’s other allies might be persuaded that it is in their own best interests to cooperate with the

U.S. and perhaps a plan could be worked out to remove him from power without chaos erupting. But there’s no guarantee.

Right now, let’s hope Assad gets the message because if he persists in using chemical weapons, President Trump will surely send a reminder.