Nikki Haley, the bull in the China shop, said at the UN today that the US was “Locked and Loaded” in the event of another Syrian chemical attack. However, it is clear that the whole world is, in fact, locked and loaded against Donald Trump. It is telling that people like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un are more rational actors than Trump is. The strikes against Syria are, as President Putin rightly said, an act of aggression against a sovereign state.
Why do I say that the world is uniting against Donald Trump? Some unlikely people have gotten an attack of conscience over the Syria Strikes:
Alex Jones.
Laura Ingraham.
Tucker Carlson.
Michael Savage.
Ann Coulter.
Mike Cernovich.
Laura Loomer.
RT and associated Russian media, which used to be pro-Trump, is now solidly anti-Trump. Beyond Britain and France, there was little support for Trump’s strikes beyond moral support. Even our close allies in the region like Saudi Arabia and Israel did not participate.
It may very well be right that Trump is engaged in a charade with Putin. But that does not make the Syria strikes any more acceptable from a moral perspective. They were conducted without authorization from Congress. There was no clear and present danger to the US that would necessitate such strikes. There was no effort to authorize force from the UN Security Council. There was no effort to get NATO on board. Even Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” had more partners than this.
Two wrongs do not make a right. The US claim that Syria has used chemical weapons on 50 different occasions is believable. But Syria is not doing anything that we haven’t done in the past. For instance, we killed thousands, if not millions, through the use of Agent Orange during Vietnam. And the Bush Administration, as is well-known, used White Phosphorus during Iraq along with Depleted Uranium.
Putin could care less how many bombs we drop on Syria, as long as his troops are not endangered. But there are two risks involved that could lead to World War III, even if people who say the whole thing is a charade are correct. The first is that a miscommunication or misunderstanding between the US and Russian militaries could easily turn a cold war into a hot war. The other is that even if Russia doesn’t retaliate militarily, the whole situation could spiral into a regional or even global conflict.
Assuming that the reports tying Syria to the chemical attacks in Eastern Ghouta are correct, there are plenty of ways of dealing with Assad that don’t involve killing people and running the risk of triggering World War III. We can sanction people who we tie to the chemical program and who are egging Assad on. We can let in immigrants from all corners of the world who are fleeing war, famine, and persecution and encourage others to do the same. But military force is not a morally defensible option unless and until the whole world is on board. Any use of military force that is not directed against a direct attack against our country or that is not directed against a clear and present danger to our country needs to go first through Congress, and then through the UN Security Council.