Syria crisis why trump’s call for an attack is the right move at the right time fox news

I support a U.S. attack on Syria because of its deterrent effect against the use of chemical weapons and also because our strikes against Syria will almost certainly be limited in scope and duration – but will most likely greatly limit Assad’s ability to kill his own people with chemical weapons.

And it’s uncertain now how many chemical weapons Assad actually ever destroyed under Russian back agreement. Relying on Russia to monitor chemical weapons destruction by its close ally Syria isn’t exactly a foolproof way to guarantee that the destruction took place.

The Syrian regime has launched numerous attacks using chlorine-based weapons that many times get very little media attention.


The scale the most recent attack by Assad’s forces – a clear crime against humanity – only proves that the promise of Assad to abandon chemical weapons was worthless.

Sadly, the international community, already reeling from Pyongyang’s other provocative actions of 2017 – specifically, testing missiles and nuclear weapon – did very little in responding to this brazen violation of international law, further eroding what should be a clear norm that such weapons should never be used.

And then there are Russia’s most recent actions, using chemical weapons on British soil, in an attempt to assassinate dissidents in what could be considered an act of war. While Moscow offers the most brazen of denials, it seems clear that the regime of President Vladimir Putin – seeing other nations’ usage of chemical weapons bringing no punishment – thought it would get away with such an act.

Yet some Americans argue passionately and with conviction that we must avoid attacking the Assad regime at all costs. They say a U.S. attack on Syria would show we are determined to launch a long and costly war of regime change – possibly putting America in a direct conflict with Russia and further destabilizing the already unstable Middle East.

I would respectfully disagree. Precision American missile strikes, with the clear goal of eliminating Assad’s chemical weapons capabilities – targeting his air force, artillery and anything else that can launch chemical weapons – does not constitute regime change.

Such an action wouldn’t be just a strike against Syria – it would be a total war. And as history clearly proves, such a war would risk creating a zone of instability from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf – as happened when we forced regime change in Iraq.

As for a potential clash with Russia if we hit Syria, we must state clearly to Moscow our intent –and that we have no desire for armed conflict with Russia. We should remind the Putin government that the current crisis with Syria is largely a product of its own doing.

It was Russia that decided to intervene, en masse, in the current crisis in Syria back in 2015. And Russia has done nothing to restrain or eliminate Assad’s rebuilt or hidden chemical weapons capability – something it claimed it was trying to eliminate.

Despite Russia’s clear fueling of a civil war in Syria that has claimed roughly 400,000 lives, the Trump administration should make it clear it will do all it can to avoid Moscow’s forces in region. And when possible – even if it means giving up the element of surprise – we should warn the Putin government if its forces are near potential U.S. targets.

Clearly, no one, including President Trump, wants to see another conflict widen in the Middle East. In fact, if anything, the president’s determination to leave Syria makes it clear he will not embroil America in another war for regime change in that part of the world.

However, President Trump – through what will most likely be a targeted mission to stop Assad from slaughtering his own people with chemical weapons – has now placed a clear line in the sand that the use of such weapons of mass destruction constitutes a crime against humanity.