Trump’s missile strike on Syria in retaliation

Abby+Banks+talks+about+Syrian+Missile+crisis
Back to Article
Back to Article

Trump’s missile strike on Syria in retaliation

Abby Banks talks about Syrian Missile crisis

Abby Banks talks about Syrian Missile crisis

Abby Banks

Abby Banks talks about Syrian Missile crisis

Abby Banks

Abby Banks

Abby Banks talks about Syrian Missile crisis

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






 

President Donald Trump recently ordered a missile strike on an air base belonging to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s current president, in retaliation to the use of chemical weapons on civilians. While militant force can have its occasional need, Trump’s motives for the strike seem to be in relation to establishing American dominance, rather than actually trying to avenge and aid civilians caught in the crossfire.

The U.S. has a long history of military expansion, starting in the 19th century with the Monroe Doctrine’s justification of American dominance in the western hemisphere. Interactions with the US mainly led to economic subservience, rather than a colonizer ruling as was the case with European expansion during the same time period. Since the Cold War, the US has seen more militant dominance, in trying to establish democratic societies by going in an destabilizing regions, as in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Iran, to name only a few.

“So what happens is I said, ‘We’ve just launched 59 missiles heading to Iraq,'” Trump said in an interview with Fox News. He corrected himself to say they were headed to Syria, after being prompted by the interviewer. While he slipped up on the name of the country he had just bombed, he had only moments earlier easily remembered “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake,” that he had shared with the Chinese president, Xi Jinping.

I think, best [case scenario], we would stop the terrorists, and worst [case scenario], we would start a global conflict.”

— Laura Schulz

Trump himself has said that he disagrees with the Geneva Convention, which is the international code regulating the use of chemical weapons. His arguments made on these grounds are simply a front for his desire for US power, as he has mentioned in the past that he thinks the Geneva convention is a problem, and cited methods of dealing with terrorists which directly violate those conventions. If the administration were taking the attacks even remotely seriously, they might have even remembered the name of the country that they were bombing.

“As long as our military advances are against terrorist groups and not civilians, then it’s okay,” junior Laura Schulz said.

The US seems to want military dominance, but without putting up a fight. Nationalism in every country involved always causes friction, and the typical response is force, rather than humanitarian aid. If Trump had spent the $60 million he spent on missiles in humanitarian aid instead, this wouldn’t be a problem. One can’t argue that the terrorists don’t deserve pushback, but the lack of effort put towards aid instead of perpetuating violence shows the underlying desire for power.

While the terrorist attacks are in no way excusable, U.S. resources would be better spent on aid for the civilians who are affected by the violence. By fighting fire with fire, America is simply appearing to have no aim other than to be able to brag that they have the biggest fire.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email