Tweeter Trump finally makes a call most of his people will endorse

US PRESIDENT Donald Trump has made the right move in undertaking to remove his 2000 troops from wartorn Syria within the next 100 days.

In typical Trump-style, he confirmed his government’s stance on Syria via Twitter with a “mission accomplished” type of tweet: “We have defeated Isis in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency.”

Syria has been immersed in civil war for seven years. The fighting factions include those loyal to President Bashar al-assad, rebels (mainly Kurdish) who are opposed to Assad’s rule, and Islamic State (IS), which is bent on establishing an Islamic caliphate.

The Kurds, the largest ethnic minority in Syria, make up about 10% of the population.

As a superpower, the US was drawn into the fray because they strongly oppose Assad’s leadership and IS is their sworn enemy.

The US has sided with the Kurds and is known to have provided them with training and militia in their fight against IS and Assad.

While there are strong arguments for and against Trump’s pull-out of US forces, the most compelling is that the US presence in Syria goes against its own constitution.

The US got involved in the Syrian saga during former president Barack Obama’s rule.

It has been claimed that the US entered the conflict surreptitiously, slipping in soldiers quietly without congressional consent.

Article one of the US constitution states that all legislative powers are granted and vested in the US Congress, which consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process – legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers.

So the US presence in Syria needed to have been argued before Congress before it was effected, which was never done during the Obama era.

Also, the US’S unsanctioned presence in Syria goes against international law because it had to be cleared by the UN so that it could not be regarded as an invasion.

Therefore, Trump, according to the law of his own country, has done the right thing.

But Trump being Trump has irked some with his sudden Syrian stance.

There are those who have said that Trump could have handled the planned Syrian exit in a more prudent manner.

They have suggested that he should have consulted his allies first to hatch plans on how to deploy intelligence platforms and networks in Syria that could anticipate possible terrorist attacks in the future.

As a result, Trump has been accused of playing into the hands of terrorists, allowing the proliferation of IS and abdicating responsibility in the Middle East.

They questioned Trump’s commitment to “antiinterventionism”, basing their claims on the US siding with Saudi Arabia in Yemen and on the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi as cases in point.

Then there are those who have said that the US’S penchant for interventionism has only brought them bigger problems, such as in Afghanistan.

More than $2 trillion was spent on fighting and aid while 2300 American soldiers were killed over 17 years of conflict in Afghanistan and the majority of Afghanis still support al-qaeda.

Those in Trump’s corner on this call – including some who were not alive when the 9/11 terror attacks occurred – have celebrated the fact that US soldiers will finally be able to make a safe return home – and that Americans will be hated less around the world.