What to Make of Trump’s Syrian Air Strike

The title of this article “What to Make of Trump’s Syrian Air Strike” is appropriate, and should give constitutional conservatives pause. “Trump’s …Air Strike”?  One man’s air strike?  Shouldn’t it be U.S. Air Strike?  Isn’t that how it feels though—like the

090429-N-4879G-349 ATLANTIC OCEAN (April 29, 2009) A Harpoon missile is launched from the guided-missile destroyer USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) during the sinking exercise portion of UNITAS Gold. This year marks the 50th iteration of UNITAS, a multinational exercise that provides opportunities for participating nations to increase their collective ability counter illicit maritime activities that threaten regional stability. Participating countries are Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Mexico, Peru, U.S. and Uruguay. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Patrick Grieco/Released)

(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Patrick Grieco/Released)

president is going it alone without a Declaration of War (U.S. Constitution, 1789) or a War Powers Authorization (federal law, 1973).

(I appreciate my reader’s [edit: readers’. That’s hilarious] patience. I haven’t posted in a while because I’ve been up to my eyeballs in homework in grad school.)

Thursday, April 6th (EST), the U.S. Navy launched 59 Tomahawk missiles striking a Syrian air base in western Syria.  The missile strike came on the heels of a report Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, launched a sarin-gas air strike against a neighborhood killing young children.

Yes, yes, I know the 1973 War Powers Act gives the president the prerogative to use immediate military force without a Declaration of War or congressional Authorization. But, this immediate prerogative can ONLY be used if there is an “attack on the U.S., territories, possessions, or armed forces.”

This is not an article about Declarations of War violations, nor is it a claim Al-Queda-backed rebels were to blame for the sarin-gas attack.  Though both are addressed.  This is not a false-flag article.

Those of us out here in the real world simply do not have the intel to determine who launched the horrific gas attack that prompted Trump’s response.

Here are my concerns, not in any particular order:

Who has more to gain in launching the sarin gas attack on innocent Syrians, Syria or the Syrian rebels (i.e. al-Queda)? Answer:  Syrian rebels.  The rebels have been dogged by Syrian and Russian air strikes, begging the U.S. to get involved and destroy Syria’s air force.  Syria does not benefit from purposely or accidentally gassing innocent Syrians (though I don’t discount the possibility there were other reasons Syria may have bombed this neighborhood).  To date, there is no publically available evidence to cast blame.

Senators John McCain and Graham are thrilled about this U.S. air strike. I rarely, if ever, agree with these misguided Progressive Republicans.  So, I’m automatically inclined to think I should disapprove of the U.S. air strike.  If the Leftist media supports it (the air strikes), I’m definitely suspicious.

There is a stink of politics in the air—China’s visit, Democrats and Leftist media hammering away at this ridiculous narrative Trump is in bed with Putin, North Korean tensions building.

Is President Trump so emotionally sensitive that a few horrifying images of sarin-gas victims move him to risk a larger war without congressional authorization? I too have a weak stomach for children suffering, but Americans expect their president to hold it together and act with prudence in the face of human suffering. This kind of human suffering goes on daily since time immemorial.

Finally, about the president (any U.S. president) using military force when we have not been attacked directly. The president simply does NOT have the authority to go around the world committing unprovoked U.S. military strikes be they large significant missions or “targeted,” “surgical,” or “one-offs.” He just doesn’t.  This is how wars are started.

Our Founding Fathers were scared to death a president would draw us into a larger war by committing our military via smaller provocative strikes. That’s just a fact.  If we want to change the Constitution in that regard, then someone needs to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

I rarely disagree with Mark Levin. Mr. Levin has been quick to support Trump’s decision to strike the Syrian air base.   Even if Syria’s air force is to blame for the sarin gas attack (a distinct possibility), I cannot condone a U.S. air strike that ignores the rule of law.  Are we condoning the rule of men now?

I am far more concerned about North Korea and Iran’s nuclear programs than I am Syria’s awful civil war. Why?  Nukes.  North Korea and Iran pose a direct threat to the U.S.  Yeah, it’s easier to launch a handful of Tomahawks at a crumbling regime than to man-up and face real threats like North Korea where many thousands of U.S. service men and women may die.  There’s a lot of complicated heavy lifting to be done about North Korea and Iran; that’s a real leader’s conflict—with millions of American civilian lives hanging in the balance.

I support Trump. And I like thumping the bad guys as much as anyone.  But let’s try to get through this current administration with the rule of law and U.S. Constitution intact, shall we.  That’s what is at stake here—that’s what’s always at stake!  Do we trade away the U.S. Constitution for momentary bravado?  Not this patriot.



JOIN Prodigal Sons of Liberty by Subscribing!  Subscribers receive latest articles directly by email. To Subscribe enter your email address above. It’s FREE, fast, and easy. I do NOT sell your email. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Share an article with family, friends, and patriots by clicking your favorite social media or email icon below each article.

THANK YOU for Subscribing and sharing

Prodigal Sons of Liberty!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather